- 40 -
With respect to the questions regarding the Rivercliff
property, petitioner asserted that NCPL did not have a security
interest in the property until after $5 million had been
transferred for its development because the property was zoned
only for a single-family residence. The zoning regulations did
not allow the property to be used as a corporate retreat. Thus,
to avoid permit problems with Multnomah County petitioner wanted
to maintain the appearance that NCPL did not own an interest and
that the property would be used for single-family purposes
throughout the course of the permit process and through
completion of construction.
With respect to the question regarding NCPL’s advances for
the interest on the $1,400,000 settlement judgment, petitioner
stated:
I do not consider these payments to my former wife as
my personal obligation. My employer assumed these
obligations as his own, in return for her portion of
the equity in the [Rivercliff] property. The payments
referred to here are installments towards his acquiring
all of her position ultimately. * * *
With respect to the questions regarding NCPL’s payments for
petitioner’s child support and education, he stated:
Accordingly, these payments here as well, were not my
personal obligation, but what my employer deemed
compensation to Kumiko directly. I personally never
received any benefit whatsoever from her receipt of
these monies, and therefore do not feel I am obligated
to have to pay any taxes on these. * * *
As to Lillian’s portion, I consider these amounts as
borrowed funds from my employer, to be settled once we
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008