- 23 -
December 1989. This is what the record shows. See supra table
1. This is what respondent’s agent plainly testified to at
trial, when she painstakingly reviewed each month’s sales figures
as shown on the MIR’s. Petitioner’s contention as to
respondent’s position is contradicted by the record.8 Secondly,
petitioner’s contention that it sold “only * * * 5,029,368
gallons of diesel fuel during the tax year ending June 30, 1990”,
is contradicted by Steve’s March 5, 1998, letter to respondent
stating that petitioner sold 5,111,954 gallons of diesel fuel
during petitioner’s fiscal 1990. See supra table 2 and
associated text. Petitioner has not explained the roughly 82-
thousand-gallon discrepancy between Steve’s letter and its
contention on brief. Thirdly, petitioner has failed to direct
our attention to anything in the record supporting its position
on brief that it sold only 5,029,368 gallons. We have
unsuccessfully searched the record, giving special care to
Steve’s testimony, for evidence supporting petitioner’s
contention. We note that petitioner does not repeat this
contention in its answering brief.
In light of the record herein, including the contradictions
among petitioner’s books and records and the statements in
8A stipulated exhibit suggests that the income
reconstruction in the notice of deficiency may have been prepared
on the basis that petitioner describes. However, respondent
abandoned that position. See supra note 2.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011