- 11 -
1. Workers’ Compensation
Petitioner contends that weekly workers’ compensation of
$400 which he received from January 1994 to June or July 1995
should be excluded from respondent’s bank deposits analysis. We
disagree for the most part. Petitioner did not show that he
deposited all of the workers’ compensation payments in the
Colonial Bank account. He did not provide bank records for 1994,
and his 1995 bank statements show only 3 deposits of $400 (2 in
January, 1 in October) and 1 deposit of $800 (in May). We find
that petitioner’s deposits of $400 on January 6 and 18, 1995, are
workers’ compensation and therefore should be excluded from gross
receipts. See sec. 104(a)(1). However, the $400 deposit on
October 17, 1995, occurred after petitioner received his final
workers’ compensation settlement in August 1995 and is not
workers’ compensation.
2. Purported Loans to Petitioner
Petitioner contends that an October 1995 deposit of $5,000
into his account was a loan from Mrs. Chappell that should be
excluded from gross receipts. We disagree. Petitioner’s
testimony about the alleged loan was vague. He did not state who
lent the money to him. Petitioner provided no evidence to
support his claim. Petitioner offered Exhibit 20-P to show that
Mrs. Chappell had lent him money. We did not admit Exhibit 20-P
into evidence because petitioner had not exchanged it before
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