- 70 -
1997 meeting, when Klimkiewicz asked Michael how much remained in
the box at the time of the meeting, Michael told her to subtract
out from the alleged $180,000 that existed at the beginning of
1994 the amount she was proposing as a deficiency, and that would
be the amount remaining in the box at that time. On brief,
petitioners state that they do not dispute that, at that meeting,
Michael did make this statement. Petitioners do not contend that
Klimkiewicz’s “selective hearing” was incorrect as to this point.
This statement to Klimkiewicz was made more than 2 years after
Michael bought the Metairie Court property, and more than a year
after all of the cash from the box had been spent, according to
Michael’s trial testimony.
As we indicated supra (part A(9)(e)(ii) of this opinion),
Michael’s trial testimony and his oral and written statements to
respondent’s agent during the audit, seem to be tailored to his
shifting perceptions of what suits his purposes, rather than to
his best recollections of actual events.
Secondly, it has long been established that a taxpayer’s
“recurring need to borrow money is inconsistent with the claim to
a secret hoard. Boyett v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d
205.” Cefalu v. Commissioner, 276 F.2d 122, 127 (5th Cir. 1960),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1958-37. Respondent points to petitioners’
extensive borrowing–-a total of $391,615, respondent says (our
calculations are slightly less), with interest rates ranging from
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