-20-
to treat the time when he first became aware of any aspect of the
custom house theft loss as the time when he discovered such loss,
we turn to petitioner’s claim that he discovered the custom house
theft loss in October 2000. In support of that claim, petitioner
relies on his testimony with respect to the alleged brick theft
and the alleged humidifier theft. We found petitioner’s testi-
mony regarding the alleged brick theft to be questionable and
inconsistent with certain other testimony of petitioner. Peti-
tioner testified:
In October 2004,[6] we were discussing with Mona Build-
ers the price that we had been charged and a payment we
had made to them for bricks.
The [custom house] contract specifies in the
allowance paragraph that the bricks were supposed to be
charged at $450,000. Excuse me. $450 per 1,000
bricks. At that point we knew that we had already just
paid them for about 40,000 bricks.
We visited the brick dealer because we recognized
that the price we had been quoted by the brick subcon-
tractor was $310 per 1,000. * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * Despite asking for them, we received no
invoices certifying the price of the bricks, and the
only way we were ultimately able to obtain those in-
voices was through the litigation that we started with
Mona Builders over the problems with the house.
When we received those invoices, they showed that
the bricks were in fact charged that $310 per 1,000.
[Emphasis added.]
6See supra note 5.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011