- 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