John Michael Treu - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          $400 per week.  In a domestic relations matter around the same              
          time he also executed an affidavit to the effect that he was paid           
          $600 per week.  At trial, he maintained that the $600 figure was            
          correct.                                                                    
                                     Discussion                                       
               There is no question that petitioner received gross income             
          from Treu Air.  The question is how much he received.  In                   
          answering this we have a contest of credibility between                     
          petitioner and his brother, neither of whom was a model of                  
          candor.2  The matter is more convoluted because the records of              
          Treu Air and petitioner are either nonexistent or confusing to              
          the extent that they shed little light on the controversy.  Both            
          petitioner and his brother probably believe their testimony was             
          truthful.  But it is questionable whether either really knows the           
          answer to the question.  Given these facts, we are left to make             
          an educated guess as to what petitioner’s gross income from Treu            
          Air was.                                                                    
               Petitioner executed a contemporaneous affidavit stating that           
          his income was $600 per week.  It would seem reasonable that he             
          took at least 2 weeks of vacation for which he was not paid.                
          While the notations on the company check register indicate that             
          petitioner was paid more, it is undisputed that Treu Air                    


          2    Sec. 7491(a), concerning the burden of proof, is inappli-              
          cable because petitioner has not satisfied its requirements.                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011