- 17 - Petitioner testified that he would leave a WA, filled out and signed by him, in the cash register or with the bartender, and that Helmle could only take from the register the authorized amount. Petitioner further testified that he never received or took possession of any of the money shown on the WAs. Respondent argues that petitioner’s trial testimony was “self serving, inconsistent, conflicting, and generally not credible”, and that petitioner failed to produce credible evidence that the cash and food distributed pursuant to the WAs were used for any business purpose. He suggests that petitioner’s failure to call as witnesses any employees of the club or any dancers suggest that their testimony would have been negative. He concludes that, because petitioner failed to prove that the distributions reflected in the WAs were for any business purpose, they must be considered taxable dividends to petitioner. The only portion of 2618's alleged expenditures for business promotion/travel that respondent treats as constructive dividends to petitioner is that reflected in the WAs. However, the WAs generally support and corroborate petitioner’s characterization of the expenditures, not respondent’s. The vast majority of the WAs simply contain the notation “pro mo” in addition to the date, the dollar amount, and petitioner’s signature. There is no indication that the specified dollar amounts were to be paid to petitioner rather than to a third party pursuant to petitioner’sPage: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011