- 6 - herein that she received loan repayments of $119,581 during that year. The Workpaper also suggests that petitioner’s salary in 1988 was $75,000, but petitioner has agreed in connection with this case that it was $35,193, without making any effort to explain the discrepancy. Furthermore, the Workpaper’s recitation that petitioner earned $98,570 in commissions and $75,000 in salary is consistent with the proposition that she received at least $119,581 in compensation from Bankers Mortgage during 1988. Given the foregoing problems, the Workpaper, at most, supports an inference that petitioner made some loans to Bankers Mortgage. It does not, however, support a finding that respondent erred in determining that petitioner received nonemployee compensation of $119,581 from Bankers Mortgage during 1988. Petitioner did not present any other evidence from the books and records of Bankers Mortgage to prove the existence of loans or to clarify how Bankers Mortgage treated the payments in issue for its own tax and financial reporting purposes.4 Her testimony further indicated that the alleged loans were not evidenced by promissory notes, were not secured by collateral, and did not earn interest. 4 During pretrial proceedings, this Court repeatedly informed petitioner of her responsibility to substantiate her claim that the Form 1099 information Bankers Mortgage furnished to respondent was erroneous. At trial, petitioner claimed to possess the books and records of Bankers Mortgage but admitted she never presented such documents to respondent and did not bring them to the trial proceedings.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011