- 13 -
from PSEG Global, or that he is entitled to additional deductions
with respect to the underlying expenses. See Rule 142(a).
Petitioner further argues that he received reimbursements
from other sources, such as San Luis Tank. However, petitioner
has presented no credible evidence that any of the amounts
deposited into his bank accounts were reimbursements for expenses
incurred on behalf of San Luis Tank or any other entity or
individual. The only evidence to this effect was petitioner’s own
self-serving, uncorroborated testimony, which we do not find to be
credible: At more than one point in his testimony, petitioner
stated that he could not recall the purpose of individual
withdrawals or deposits noted on his bank account statements.
Petitioner’s next argument is that a portion of the deposits
into his accounts consists of transfers between accounts or
amounts that were withdrawn and subsequently redeposited into the
same account. The only evidence in the record pertaining to this
argument lies in bank statements from the bank accounts at Wells
Fargo Bank and Home Savings of America, and copies of checks drawn
on the Wells Fargo account. While petitioner was unable to
discuss the bank statements in detail, certain of the Wells Fargo
checks clearly indicate that they were for transfers to another
account. However, the total amount of these checks is less than
the amount already taken into account as transfers in respondent’s
calculation. Other Wells Fargo checks were written to Household
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011