- 22 -
As to respondent’s contention that Neal gave false testimony
at trial concerning an audit interview with respondent’s agents,
this claim rests on conflicting testimony. One of the agent’s
notes of the interview recorded that John said he followed a
procedure for ensuring that the weight tickets that reflected the
scrap metal sales were forwarded from his work location in the
Prospect building to the main office in the Buchanan building.
At trial, both John and Neal denied that John had made the
statements recorded in the notes, while both agents gave
contradicting testimony. The agent’s notes are not in evidence,
although John and Neal obtained the notes and reviewed them just
prior to trial. On this record, respondent has failed to prove,
by clear and convincing evidence, that Neal gave false testimony
at trial.
Finally, while we agree with respondent that Neal’s
testimony alluding to the possibility that he himself may have
been the one who first raised the issue of scrap metal sales is
highly improbable, we do not believe this is a material factor in
light of the actions taken by Neal to disclose the diverted
income on Simco’s amended returns.
9(...continued)
the place of the original return. Thus, the question was whether
the deductions were claimed fraudulently, not whether the income
was omitted fraudulently. In the instant case, the amended
returns were not filed within the time required for filing
returns, so they do not take the place of the original returns.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011