- 7 - gain be reduced by $5,084 to reflect the cost of an engine overhaul for the tractor. Respondent offers the following three checks as the basis of his determination of the purchase price. Each check is a cashier’s check, drawn on London Bank & Trust of London, Kentucky, with Gary and Fairy Smith (the purchasers of the tractor and trailer) as remitters. Number Check Date Amount Payment Date Payee Indorser 091724 9/14/93 $500 9/15/93 Gary or Fairy Smith Gary Smith1 091725 9/14/93 24,000 9/17/93 Petitioner Petitioner2 091726 9/14/93 13,500 9/20/93 Petitioner Petitioner3 1Blank indorsement 2Blank indorsement 3Indorsed for petitioner by petitioner wife, for deposit only At trial, petitioners disputed receiving two of these checks-- numbers 091724 and 091726. Evidence received into the record, however, shows that check number 091726 was received by petitioners because it was indorsed “for deposit only,” “Will Barck by Janie Barck.” The purpose of the other disputed check, number 091724, is unclear; why the purchasers would obtain a cashier’s check payable to themselves is unknown. Respondent argues that this check was used by the purchaser as a retainer in a “good-faith effort in the sale.” Although there is no evidence that petitioners received the cashier’s check itself, the proximity of the check number, check date, and payment date of the disputed check to those of the other checks indicates that this amount was most likely given to petitioners in cash for aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011