- 19 - that a significant portion of the Pacific construction loan and the First National loans went into the Atherton project. However, we cannot agree with the assumption inherent in petitioners’ indirect method of reconstructing those expenses, that the entire amounts of the construction loans represent deductible expenses. Thus, we cannot agree that petitioners’ reliance on the construction loans provides a rational basis for estimating the amount of those expenses. There is evidence that Mr. Assaad received some of the loan proceeds as direct disbursements. Indeed, Mr. Assaad testified: The construction guy, Trudell, do the computer run and then every month we do development, and we go to the two bank and we said: We develop $150,000 here, $100,000 debt. They pay us. We pay all the subcontractor. We pay all the labor. We have 49 people working on those three houses, every day, six days a week. Q Did you ever write checks? A Of course we have write checks, yes. Petitioners did not produce any checks or any other comparable evidence showing the amount of the loan proceeds that was paid into the project. Further, Mr. Assaad received cash back on at least one of the loan transactions involved in this case: He received $120,802.70 cash on California Federal’s refinancing of the First National Bank loans. Although petitioners do not rely on that amount to estimate their construction expenses, the fact that Mr. Assaad received cash directly on that loan suggests thatPage: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011