- 6 - commission. The gross profit from the cars was allegedly determined after the expenses attributable to the cars were paid, which included commissions paid to salespersons, but before payment of expenses such as building expenses, rent, and salaries of the administrative staff. Frank further testified that after all expenses of the business were paid, the net profit would be split by the shareholders. At trial, Frank claimed the shareholders in 1993 and 1994 were Thomas and himself. The testimony regarding the computation of the amounts paid to Frank, Thomas, and Bob, the amounts that should have been paid to each, and the number of shareholders was not consistent with the written documentation. Further, Frank’s claim that the three men split the gross profits from the sale of cars is questionable because Southern Auto’s sole source of income was the sale of cars and if all car profits were divided there would be nothing left to pay the building and other administrative expenses. In practice, Frank usually would not take his share because of Southern Auto's cash-flow problems. He believed that Thomas and Bob should take the money because they had no other source of income to support their families. Apparently, Thomas and Bob took money from the business as they needed it. On Southern Auto's 1993 and 1994 tax returns, which were signed under penalty of perjury, Frank, Thomas, and Bob were listed as shareholders, with their shares of income, credits, andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011