Anthony J. McCarthy - Page 9




                                                - 9 -9                                                 
            petitioner continued to work a 40-hour work week in concrete                               
            construction.  Petitioner briefly mentioned in his testimony that                          
            he forwent supervisory positions in order to continue his                                  
            involvement in his son’s activities.  The only evidence presented                          
            to support this contention was petitioner’s own testimony:                                 
                        For somebody with my skills, [the average earnings per                         
                  year are] anywhere from 40 to 50 thousand dollars and                                
                  upwards.  Actually, the situation for me is that I – I                               
                  probably – I shouldn’t say probably – I know that I could                            
                  have been in supervisory positions from ‘93 on.                                      
                        Before ‘93, I was in supervisory positions.  At that                           
                  point, once I decided to manage Benjamin’s career, it was                            
                  impossible for me to work a lot of hours.  I couldn’t work                           
                  the weekends.  I had to take weeks off for national events.                          
            Even without a supervisory position, petitioner earned                                     
            substantial income, $44,709, in the construction business during                           
            1993.  No evidence was presented indicating what amount of income                          
            petitioner may have forgone by managing his son and participating                          
            in the motocross activities.  We do not find from petitioner’s                             
            uncorroborated, self-serving, and irresolute testimony that                                
            petitioner withdrew in any significant sense from his                                      
            construction job in order to pursue motocross.                                             
                  This factor favors respondent.                                                       
                  4.  Expectation That Property Used in the Activity Would                             
            Appreciate in Value.                                                                       
                  Petitioner did not invest in any property that would                                 
            appreciate in value.                                                                       
                  This factor is neutral.                                                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011