- 6 -
trial were identified in petitioners’ counsel’s opening statement
as follows:
the question is whether all of the deposits from one
account to another, who had as their source funds that
have already been counted as a gross deposit for one
account, have they been accounted for in the gross
income figure. That’s one issue.
Then the other issue about the cost of goods sold,
I just say this. * * * So whatever cost of goods sold
indicate that the testimony that you hear and when
these items were purchased, we’re trying to deal with
items that were purchased from January 1 through
December 31 in the taxable year.
We’re not trying to get any adjustments outside of
that for anything, so we’re strict cash basis.
And that’s it. That more or less outlines the
testimony I expect to present.
Nowhere in their posttrial briefs do petitioners point to
any evidence that would establish that the gross receipts
reported by Bioactive Kansas Trust were included more than once
in any calculation of gross receipts ultimately attributed to
petitioners. Nowhere in their posttrial briefs do petitioners
point to any evidence of the correct amount of purchases to be
included in the cost of goods sold calculation for the businesses
during 1999.
The arguments set forth in petitioners’ briefs do not
address the issue of purchases identified at the commencement of
trial. Petitioners’ argument in their briefs with respect to the
cost of goods sold issue claims unexplained and unquantified
inventory adjustments, such as alleged “shrinkage”. Yet no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011