- 7 -
cash to a customer, they were required to complete a cash-out
ticket that listed both the amount given as well as the name of
the individual receiving the cash. These witnesses also
testified as to their personal knowledge of Mr. Hamilton’s
involvement in these transactions.6 We find this evidence to
unequivocally demonstrate that petitioners received the amount
indicated by respondent.
At trial, Mr. Hamilton contended that some of the cash
amounts received was used to pay for business expenses.
Specifically, Mr. Hamilton claimed that he had receipts showing
that a large portion of the cash at issue was used to purchase
coal for the account of H&S. Petitioners did not, however,
produce the receipts or otherwise present any books, records, or
other testimony that would support this assertion.
Once the Commissioner has validly reconstructed a taxpayer’s
6 At trial, Mr. Hamilton argued that he never received a
significant portion of the cash from the transactions at issue.
Rather, he argued that other individuals signed his name to the
checks without his permission to avoid certain cashing
restrictions and fees imposed on individuals who did not have an
account with Fidelity. Further, Mr. Hamilton argued that the
bank tellers perjured themselves both in the civil and criminal
trials when they testified that he was the one who received the
money. Unsurprisingly, petitioner did not produce any testimony
(other than his own) or evidence supporting his position at
trial. After trial, along with his posttrial brief, Mr. Hamilton
submitted two affidavits purportedly taken from individuals
involved in several of these transactions to support his
contention that he did not receive the funds. His failure to
produce the evidence at trial, however, cannot be remedied on
brief, as the evidentiary record is closed. See Rule 143(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011