- 14 -
does not dispute a proposed finding of fact by respondent, which
we find as a fact, that Clausing and counsel for petitioner
advised petitioner’s workers on what the workers should and
should not say in response to questions that respondent might ask
them during petitioner’s audit as to the gaming operation and
their compensation therefrom. We believe that each of
petitioner’s six witnesses at the time of his or her testimony
knew that the $65 payments were reportable as taxable income and
that those payments were not reported as such. We surmise that
petitioner’s six witnesses also were generally aware at the time
of their testimony of the potential repercussions of not
reporting the $65 payments as income and the consequences of any
admission that they may make at trial as to that omission.
Third, five of petitioner’s six witnesses were generally
longtime workers for petitioner who continued to work for
petitioner as of the time that they testified in this proceeding,
and the sixth, Parr, was petitioner’s founder and its key
supplier. Petitioner’s six witnesses’ allegiance to petitioner
and to its interests in this proceeding cannot be denied.
Petitioner and petitioner’s six witnesses all have much to lose
from a decision here adverse to petitioner and have much to gain
from a decision here favorable to petitioner.
Fourth, we conclude from the record at hand that some if not
all of petitioner’s four witnesses who received 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