- 29 -
On opening brief, petitioner charges that “the Respondent
utilized the full service price average [from Lundberg’s report]
as opposed to the self-service price.” Petitioner states that
“From the unrebutted testimony of Steve Khachatourian, all sales
of diesel fuel from Petitioner’s place of business was by self-
service.” However, at trial respondent’s agent made it plain
that she used the self-service prices from Lundberg’s report, and
not the full service prices, to reconstruct petitioner’s diesel
fuel gross receipts. The numbers in Lundberg’s report and in the
reconstruction of petitioner’s income match respondent’s agent’s
testimony. Our understanding of what was done in respondent’s
reconstruction of petitioner’s income on this point matches
respondent’s agent’s testimony. Petitioner apparently has
completely misunderstood the record on this point, much as it
misunderstood the record regarding the reconstruction of the
number of gallons of diesel fuel that it sold, discussed supra.
On opening brief, petitioner contends as follows:
The testimony of Petitioner through Steve Khachatourian
demonstrated that the diesel sales price attributed to
Petitioner and utilized by Respondent in assessing the
deficiencies and penalties was inaccurate and unreliable and
were approximately 30 cents per gallon in excess of that
actually charged by Petitioner during the 1990 tax year.
Specific examples of sales in the month of June, as
remembered by Steve Khachatourian through actual sales
receipts produced at time of trial demonstrated that
Petitioner sold diesel fuel in the month of June at a price
of 90 cents per gallon which was 30 cents less per gallon
than the $1.20 being ascribed to Petitioner for the same
period of time. There is no valid reason stated by
Respondent as to why prices in the Fresno/Clovis area
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011