- 31 -
[petitioners]”. Mr. O’Malley’s testimony does not explain why
and how petitioners received those loan proceeds if, as petition-
ers contend, Kevin O’Malley was to, and did, contribute $200,000
of such proceeds to the alleged venture.28 By way of further
illustration, Mr. O’Malley’s testimony was general, vague,
conclusory, and incomplete with respect to the terms of the
purported $54,400 loan from Kevin O’Malley to petitioners. His
testimony does not establish with respect to that loan, inter
alia, (1) the interest rate, (2) the term, (3) the schedule for
payments, or (4) whether it was secured. As a final illustration
of why we shall not rely on Mr. O’Malley’s testimony regarding
the alleged venture, including the purported $54,400 loan, Mr.
O’Malley testified that during February 2000 to November 2001
petitioners issued to Kevin O’Malley checks totaling $7,407.40.
Petitioners claim that such checks were payments with respect to
the purported $54,400 loan from Kevin O’Malley to petitioners.
Mr. O’Malley did not explain why petitioners made no additional
payments with respect to that purported loan until June 3, 2003,
the date on which petitioners contend they repaid the purported
$54,400 loan.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
28Petitioners do not claim, and the record does not show,
that at the time of the December 2, 1999 transaction the alleged
venture lent petitioners $200,000 or otherwise distributed such
amount to them.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007