- 86 -
could not establish at trial, and has not established on brief,
the appropriate link between the $59,000 deposit, the purchase of
the $59,000 cashier’s check, the $63,212.50 check signed by Ms.
Allen, and the $70,000 check from Washington International.
Petitioner has not explained why the cashier’s check and the
Tucker account deposit are for $59,000, while the check signed by
Ms. Allen is for $63,212.50, and where the $4,212.50 excess ended
up. His explanation at trial was for the most part confusing.
Petitioner claims that since check No. 601 caused a decrease
of $63,212.50 in his Freedom account and that since check No. 601
is payable to the order of “Freedom Financial Center”, the
proceeds of that check must have been used to purchase the
$59,000 cashier’s check from Freedom. Petitioner assumes too
much. He assumes that he and Ms. Allen did not have other
accounts with Freedom, that he and Ms. Allen did not engage in
other transactions with Freedom, and, most importantly, that
“Freedom Savings and Loan Association” is the same entity as
“Freedom Financial Center”.60 Petitioner assumes, but fails to
establish, those matters. In any event, petitioner’s claim fails
again to account for the $4,212.50 difference between the amount
of the cashier’s check and the amount of check No. 601.
60At trial, petitioner cross-examined Revenue Agent Sherri
Blackton, but he failed to establish through that witness that
Freedom Savings & Loan Association was the same entity as Freedom
Financial Center. Indeed, Ms. Blackton testified that they might
be separate entities.
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011