- 18 -
benefit of Mr. Culnen into the accounts of Wedgewood? Is that a
fact: Yes or no?” Mr. Ianacone responded: “Yes, it is.” Thus,
the only question subject to proof is whether the Wedgewood
payments were made by Culnen & Hamilton on behalf of petitioner.
While it is true that there are no original Culnen & Hamilton
accounting records in evidence (other than copies of its tax
returns), the Sacklow letter is in evidence, and it supports the
testimony of the witnesses. Ms. Sacklow testified that she
prepared the Sacklow letter from the books and records of Culnen
& Hamilton, and she traced the treatment of the Wedgewood
payments from the bookkeeper’s scheduling of them through her
(Ms. Sacklow’s) classification of them as loans to petitioner, to
their entry onto the books and records of Culnen & Hamilton.10
While respondent may claim that the Sacklow letter is not a
substitute for the original books and records of Culnen &
Hamilton, respondent cannot claim that petitioner has presented
no evidence to support the witnesses’ testimony. The Sacklow
letter is such evidence, and, moreover, the Sacklow letter is a
joint exhibit. Respondent may also claim that he did not know
what Ms. Sacklow would say about the Sacklow letter, but he could
have discovered that before he agreed to make it a joint exhibit.
Since respondent stipulated the Sacklow letter (waiving any
10 Ms. Sacklow testified that consistent entries were made
on the books and records of Wedgewood.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011