- 17 -
the Fence Property during the period that he owned it outright
(which was from sometime in 1984 until September 29, 1989).
According to petitioner, the $75,000 figure was based on his
computation of annual rent equal to 10 percent of the Property's
appraised value of $150,000 for 5 years ($15,000 (10 percent of
$150,000) X 5 years = $75,000).
Petitioner offered no evidence to corroborate his testimony,
and a substantial amount of other evidence undermines it.
First, contrary to petitioner's testimony at trial, Lakeview
earlier characterized the $75,000 differently on the Form 1099 it
prepared with respect to the payment. On the Form, the box for
"Nonemployee compensation" was checked rather than the box for
"Rent". Previously, in the Release Agreement prepared at
petitioner's direction, the $75,000 payment was characterized as
"for consulting services rendered and in consideration for this
Agreement". Lakeview's accountant testified that it was his
understanding that the $75,000 payment was intended as
consideration for William's execution of the Release Agreement.
William denied providing any consulting services to Lakeview
during 1992, and in light of the fact that he was involved in
acrimonious litigation with the company and petitioner during
that time, we find his denial credible.
Second, petitioner's testimony is further contradicted by
William's testimony that he never demanded rent, but instead
sought to be paid the remaining one-half of the purchase price he
considered owed to him for the Fence Property. (William had
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011