Mark D. Pridgen and Kay D. Pridgen - Page 37




                                       - 37 -                                         

             any of the disallowed checks or the accounts payable to                  
             Okay Leaf was used to purchase tobacco.  Petitioners'                    
             evidence in the form of the audit report covering                        
             Mr. Wells' returns for 1988 through 1991 suggests that                   
             Beaufort Leaf sold excess-quota tobacco after having filed               
             fraudulent Forms MQ-79 and paid some of the proceeds of                  
             the sales to Mr. Wells or members of his organization.                   
             The checks disallowed by respondent are payable to persons               
             identified in the audit report as persons associated with                
             Mr. Wells.  The same is true of the account payable to                   
             Okay Leaf, a company identified in the audit report as                   
             controlled by Mr. Wells.  Therefore, petitioners' own                    
             evidence suggests that the Forms MQ-79 filed by Beaufort                 
             Leaf were falsified to document purchases of tobacco when,               
             in fact, purchases of tobacco were not made by Beaufort                  
             Leaf.  The audit report suggests that the checks were                    
             issued to persons related to Mr. Wells in order to transmit              
             proceeds of the scheme to Mr. Wells.  Furthermore, we note               
             that petitioners did not seek testimony from any of the                  
             check payees or Okay Leaf to show the nature of the                      
             payments made.  See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.                     
             Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513                     
             (10th Cir. 1947).  We also note that petitioners do not                  
             claim that the checks were paid for any purpose other                    





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011