- 13 -
Apparently recognizing that if, as they professed to
believe, it was not necessary to record on the pink sheets all
withdrawn cash, then there would have to be some means by which
SMR could trace withdrawn cash not so recorded, petitioners claim
they believed SMR would compile the unrecorded cash by examining
the records of Mrs. Parsons’ personal checking account, into
which petitioners claim all such cash was deposited. Petitioners
concede that the records of Mrs. Parsons’ account were never
given to SMR but claim this failure resulted from a
miscommunication between them. Mr. Parsons testified that he
instructed his wife to provide her checking account records to
their accountant; Mrs. Parsons testified that she misunderstood
this instruction. Thus, Mr. Parsons claims, he believed his
accountant was taking account of all the cash Mr. Parsons removed
from Cedar Hill’s proceeds because he could track it through the
cash deposits made into Mrs. Parsons’ checking account.
Petitioners’ efforts to account for the failure to provide
Mrs. Parsons’ personal checking account records to their
accountant-–which records, in their version of events, were
crucial to the accountant’s correctly compiling their income-–are
4(...continued)
petitioners’ authorized representative, the accountant advised
the agent that Mr. Parsons’ explanation was that the pink sheets
had already been completed and were at home when, on the
following morning, he would remove some of the cash awaiting
deposit to Cedar Hill’s bank account.
Page: 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