- 69 -
do not support petitioners’ contention. Petitioners contend that
the “inconsistent statements” were due to the selective hearing
of Klimkiewicz. Petitioners sum up their contentions as follows:
The Alleged Inconsistent Statements are discussed
throughout this reply brief and there is no need to repeat
these same arguments. It should also be mentioned that all
of these alleged inconsistent statements are also arguably
the self-serving testimony of the Revenue Agent * * *.
We agree with respondent.
Firstly, Michael’s testimony at trial is inconsistent with
the written statement Michael provided to Klimkiewicz regarding
the amount of cash remaining in the box at the beginning of 1994.
At trial, Michael testified that there was roughly $60,000 to
$70,000 cash in the box at the beginning of 1994. During the
July 1997 meeting, however, Michael provided to Klimkiewicz a
prepared, detailed statement in which he declared that he had a
total of $180,000 in cash at the beginning of 1994. At trial,
Michael acknowledged that he prepared this written statement and
that he presented it to Klimkiewicz at their July 1997 meeting.
When questioned at trial about this substantial discrepancy,
Michael replied that when he prepared the written statement in
1997, he “was speculating”. This conflict is not attributable to
any asserted “selective hearing” by Klimkiewicz.
We also note that Michael testified that he ran out of cash
a year after he bought the Metairie Court property. Michael
bought the Metairie Court property in March of 1995. At the July
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011