South Community Association - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          guards, and Carroll (at least in 1994 and 1995) were undisputably           
          paid by petitioner for their services, and we find such as a                
          fact.  Petitioner asserts that it paid Clausing and Carroll only            
          to work in its nongaming activities and that any work they                  
          performed in the gaming operation was without compensation.  We             
          consider that assertion to be incredible.  We find as a fact that           
          petitioner’s payments to Clausing and Carroll were at least in              
          part payment for services that they performed in connection with            
          the gaming operation.  Indeed, we would be hard put to find to              
          the contrary given that almost all of petitioner’s resources                
          (including the time of its workers) were devoted to the gaming              
          operation and that the gaming operation represented the lion’s              
          share of petitioner’s activities.  We conclude from the record              
          before us that Clausing’s and Carroll’s compensation from                   
          petitioner was attributable in small part to their services in              
          petitioner’s nongaming activity and, for the most part, to their            
          services in the gaming operation.  The mere fact that petitioner            
          may label all of their compensation as being paid only for the              
          former purpose is not dispositive of this matter.                           
               Second, as we understand it, none of the four of                       
          petitioner’s six witnesses who received the $65 payments from               
          petitioner ever reported those payments as income.6  Petitioner             

               6 Of petitioner’s six witnesses, Clausing and Parr were                
          never paid the $65 payments.                                                

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