South Community Association - Page 14

                                       - 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