- 24 -
Steve’s letter, we conclude that respondent’s reconstruction, as
we have slightly modified it, is the best that can be done to
determine how much diesel fuel petitioner sold during its
fiscal 1990.
(b) Sale Price Per Gallon. Steve testified that, each day,
petitioner’s employees copied from the fuel pump computer tapes
onto the DSR’s the totals of diesel fuel sales in gallons and in
dollar receipts. Steve testified that, each month, he sent to
Bedevian the DSR for that month, together with the fuel pump
computer tapes for that month. Bedevian testified that he told
Steve to keep the fuel pump computer tapes as a backup that would
be needed if petitioner were audited, and that Bedevian never
received any fuel pump computer tapes. Roberts testified that he
did not begin to receive fuel pump computer tapes until Andy
filed a lawsuit against petitioner and Steve some time after the
end of the year in issue. As we have noted, the DSR’s differed
substantially from the MIR’s as to the numbers of gallons sold.
See supra tables 1 and 3. In light of this conflict of evidence
and the absence of backup evidence for the amounts of receipts
listed in the DSR’s, we conclude that the record in the instant
case does not include any credible support for the diesel fuel
sales receipts amounts shown on petitioner’s PLS’s and folded
into petitioner’s fiscal 1990 tax return. See supra A.
Preliminary.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011