Thomas and Janice Gleason - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         
          amount.  During the audit, it was indicated that this amounts               
          [sic] was never paid to the petitioners or Alofs.”  Certain                 
          copies of the Schedule K-1 issued to Mr. Gleason for Excellence’s           
          FYE 1996 shows a $196,000 property distribution to which a                  
          handwritten notation “NEVER PAID” has been affixed.  Petitioners            
          do not contest that the funds were never paid; in fact,                     
          Mr. Gleason’s testimony indicated that it was he who added the              
          just-mentioned notation.                                                    
               In general, petitioners’ references at trial and on brief              
          with respect to the $196,000 are akin in their rambling and                 
          nebulous tenor to those addressed above concerning the $500,000             
          and $400,000 amounts.  Petitioners offer on opening brief that              
          “another $196,000 Alofs/Target stock purchase was funded by                 
          agreement not to accept $196,000 Excellence owned dividend”.  On            
          reply brief, they explain:                                                  
               Respondent’s statement is correct in that it was never                 
               paid to petitioner, but was treated as a reduction in                  
               cash required for purchase of stock from sellers, and                  
               Comerica agreed to permit Petitioner to withdraw                       
               $196,000 from companies without bank restrictions by                   
               April 10, 1996.  Because of the cash poor conditions of                
               the company, Petitioner elected To leave this money in                 
               the company until cash was available. * * *                            
          Mr. Gleason’s testimony at trial continued in a similar vein,               
          characterizing the $196,000 as some form of foregone                        
          distribution.                                                               
               Again, the Court is lacking in any clear evidence as to                
          precisely what transpired with respect to the $196,000 or how it            





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011