Mary Hull — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)
229 linesMS. NORRIS: State recalls Mary Hull.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Come on up here, please.
JUDGE HANKINSON: State your name again for the record, please.
MARY HULL: Mary Hull, H-U-L-L.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You remain under oath, Ms. Hull.
MARY HULL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may inquire.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Judge. Good afternoon, Ms. Hull.
MARY HULL: Good afternoon.
MS. NORRIS: I want to take you back to the last time that you were testifying in this case.
MS. NORRIS: When you were going through the types of bank records and documentation that you relied upon to do your financial analysis, you had relied upon some income tax filings, is that right?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And did you rely on Katherine Magbanua's 2013, 2014, and 2015 income tax filings?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
MS. NORRIS: May I?
MS. NORRIS: First time showing you State's Exhibit 190 — do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: What is it?
MARY HULL: Ms. Magbanua's 1040 for 2013.
MS. NORRIS: And a 1040 is?
MARY HULL: It's a tax filing.
MS. NORRIS: And is this an accurate copy of the 2013 tax filing for Ms. Magbanua?
JUDGE HANKINSON: What exhibit number was that?
MS. NORRIS: 190.
MS. NORRIS: The State moves into evidence Exhibit 190.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Is there an objection?
MR. DECOSTE: No new objection.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I wasn't aware there was an objection to all of this particular document.
JUDGE HANKINSON: What is your legal objection to this? I understood your objection to the other two documents, not to this one.
MR. DECOSTE: Same, same objection as to that, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'll allow State's Exhibit 190.
MS. NORRIS: Next I'm showing you State's Exhibit 186. I know I'm going out of order. Do you recognize that document?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: What is that, 186?
MARY HULL: It's a Katie — Katherine Magbanua's 1040 for 2014.
MS. NORRIS: And is that an accurate reflection of her income tax filing?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: The State would offer into evidence State's Exhibit 186, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any additional objection to that?
MR. DECOSTE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: It'll be admitted.
MS. NORRIS: Finally, I'm showing you State's Exhibit 188. Do you recognize that document?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: What is that?
MARY HULL: It's Ms. Magbanua's 2015 1040 tax filing.
MS. NORRIS: And is it also accurate?
MS. NORRIS: The State offers into evidence State's Exhibit 188 at this time.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any additional objection?
JUDGE HANKINSON: It will be admitted.
MS. NORRIS: May I publish this?
JUDGE HANKINSON: You may.
MS. NORRIS: Starting with 2013.
MR. ZANGENEH: Your Honor, there's minor Social Security information on those documents. I'd ask for the government to, at least before they publish to the jury, have that blacked out.
JUDGE HANKINSON: We're not going to do it, but this will be a seal.
JUDGE HANKINSON: And we'll redact that before it's made public.
MS. NORRIS: Can we do that for all three?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Right.
MS. NORRIS: On the 2013 tax block, what employment or wages were reported for 2013 by Ms. Magbanua?
MARY HULL: 12,297.
MS. NORRIS: No, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't ask that right.
MS. NORRIS: Where did she report being employed?
MARY HULL: Sophie Dental.
MS. NORRIS: In 2014 tax filing, and for the record this is State's Exhibit 186, where did she report being employed?
MARY HULL: Sophie Dental.
MS. NORRIS: And is there anyone along?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Say that a little more clearly. Clearly, you're kind of looking down and talking.
MS. NORRIS: Would you say that a little more clearly, please?
MARY HULL: Sophie Dental.
MS. NORRIS: Did you show that?
MS. NORRIS: And then, what other employers?
MARY HULL: Adelson Institute.
MARY HULL: That's the company.
MS. NORRIS: For 2015, where did Ms. Magbanua report being employed?
MARY HULL: Dr. Obed.
MS. NORRIS: And was there a second one as well?
MARY HULL: There was, for Adelson Institute.
MS. NORRIS: Now, for the Adelson Institute — would that company or that business receive any financial benefit from reporting to the IRS that Katherine Magbanua was in fact an employee they were paying funds to?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Can you explain that for me?
MARY HULL: It would have reduced their taxable income by paying out her salary. So if they list something as a paid salary, they can deduct that from their total income, and then they would only be taxed on the remaining amount.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: In order for Katherine Magbanua to in turn claim the Adelson Institute on her tax filings, or those wages on her tax filings, would Adelson Institute be required to report her as an employee?
MARY HULL: Yes, if she was going to claim the taxes back.
MS. NORRIS: Was there any indication on these three tax filings — 2013, 2014, and 2015 — that Katherine Magbanua claimed any employment at a bar, restaurant, club, anything of that nature?
MARY HULL: No.
MS. NORRIS: Any reported tips as wages?
MARY HULL: I take that back. There was a business that had no name. It was a clerical job in 2013 for $773.
MS. NORRIS: That's 2013?
MARY HULL: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE HANKINSON: For the year 2013, we'll strike that.
MS. NORRIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
MS. NORRIS: I'm showing you State's Exhibit 187 for identification.
MS. NORRIS: Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: I do.
MS. NORRIS: What is that?
MARY HULL: It's a summary of her tax filings that we have.
MARY HULL: Simplified summary.
MS. NORRIS: And those are for 2013, '14, and '15?
MARY HULL: It is.
MS. NORRIS: Did you have any other tax returns?
MARY HULL: No, I did not.
MARY HULL: Did you have any what?
MS. NORRIS: Other tax returns.
MS. NORRIS: And you answered no?
MARY HULL: No, we did not.
MS. NORRIS: And is this an accurate summary of the three income tax filings we just discussed?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: I'd offer into evidence State's Exhibit 187.
JUDGE HANKINSON: I'm not going to accept it in evidence — that's a similar objection. I will allow it to be displayed as a demonstrative.
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Same. Now I'm showing you State's Exhibit 189. Do you recognize that?
MARY HULL: Yes. I do.
MS. NORRIS: And what does that document contain?
MARY HULL: It's a summary where I added the cash deposits as well, to show what would have been a more accurate reflection of her income.
MS. NORRIS: Same for State's Exhibit 189, correct, Judge?
JUDGE HANKINSON: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: First, I'm going to put up here as a demonstrative State's Exhibit 187.
MS. NORRIS: If you have a laser pointer up there, if you wouldn't mind using it.
MS. NORRIS: Can you describe the information you reflected on State 187, the demonstrative?
MARY HULL: These are the two. There was a W-2 form, and that shows the $12,290, and then there was some other category for a clerical position she had that showed the $773. When you total those up, that shows up on her line 22 for her total income for that year.
MS. NORRIS: So if someone were to go look at the tax filing for 2013 and go exactly to line 22, they would see the total combined wages reported by Ms. Magbanua for that particular year on the tax?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. Same question regarding the 2014 tax filings. How much was reported wages for Sophie Dental?
MARY HULL: $12,465.
MS. NORRIS: And how much was reported for the Adelson Institute for 2014?
MARY HULL: $2,925.
MS. NORRIS: Same idea: if we go to line 15 of the corresponding year's tax return, namely 2014, we would see the total reported wages of $15,390.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Finally, for 2015, how much was reported as wages for Broward Dermatology or Dr. Obed?
MARY HULL: $6,252.
MS. NORRIS: And how much was reported from the Adelson Institute?
MARY HULL: $12,150.
MS. NORRIS: And again, line 15 on the 2015 tax return would be the total wages for 2015 of $18,402.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MS. NORRIS: Next, I'm going to show you State's demonstrative Exhibit 189.
MS. NORRIS: Can you describe what is different about this particular demonstrative from the last one that we reviewed?
MARY HULL: On this analysis I simply added in the cash deposits that would bring her income to a more accurate level.
MS. NORRIS: And these are cash deposits that we do not see reflected in State's Exhibit 190, 186, or 188, the income tax filings?
MARY HULL: That's correct. It's from my original analysis that showed all the cash deposits. $2,800.
MS. NORRIS: What were the total cash deposits in 2014?
MR. DECOSTE: Objection, asked and answered.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Overruled.
MARY HULL: $46,820.
MS. NORRIS: And finally, total cash deposits for 2015?
MARY HULL: $26,480.
MS. NORRIS: In 2014, what is the difference between the total income reported and the total cash deposits?
MARY HULL: Somewhere around $46,000.
MS. NORRIS: Say what?
MARY HULL: Approximately $46,000.
MARY HULL: Did I answer that?
MS. NORRIS: No.
MS. NORRIS: I asked you the difference between the cash deposit and the amount of income that Ms. Magbanua reported to the IRS in 2014.
MARY HULL: '14? Um, $31,000, approximately.
MS. NORRIS: Did — Did Ms. Magbanua receive a check from the IRS, like a tax return that we all look forward to?
JUDGE HANKINSON: We've gone far enough with this. Anything further?
MS. NORRIS: Yes, sir. I'll move on to my next question. Did you review, um, Sigfredo Garcia's — I know we discussed a little about his bank records last time.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MS. NORRIS: Did you have income tax filings for Mr. Garcia as well?
MARY HULL: I did.
MS. NORRIS: In 2013 and 2014, was there any reported income for Mr. Garcia?
MARY HULL: There was not, even though he did file a tax form.
MS. NORRIS: Okay. And then for 2015 or 2016, was there any income reported for Mr. Garcia?
MARY HULL: 2015 was $25,524.
MARY HULL: There was nothing for 2016. I saw no filing.
MS. NORRIS: Would that be — I'll strike that question.
MS. NORRIS: And did you have any bank records from the earlier period, in 2013, 2014?
MARY HULL: I did not.
MS. NORRIS: May we have one moment, Judge?
MS. NORRIS: Thank you, Ms. Hull. I have no further questions.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Cross.
MR. ZANGENEH: Ms. Hull, when you're discussing the fact that there's no bank records for my client from — he said it was '13 to '14.
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. ZANGENEH: He wasn't hiding those records from me, was he?
MARY HULL: No. The account was closed. They were not able to be retrieved.
MR. ZANGENEH: Okay. So if anybody closes an account, you can't retrieve the documentation?
MARY HULL: It's much more difficult, because the bank puts the records into archive.
MR. ZANGENEH: That's not what I asked you. What I asked you was, could you do it?
MARY HULL: Possibly.
MR. ZANGENEH: Right. Did you do it in this case? Do you have those records?
MARY HULL: No, I do not.
MR. ZANGENEH: Thank you.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have half of the year for 2013, right?
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: You don't have some of the year for 2015.
MARY HULL: That's correct.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's talk about the Adelson Institute.
MR. DECOSTE: The government asked you questions about the incentive for that?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, that when a business — let's back this up even more. When we receive paychecks, there's always something taken out about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Now, it's not just the employee that has to pay those taxes; the business pays the same amount as well, too, right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: It's called FICA taxes?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: If you could explain to the jury what FICA taxes are.
MARY HULL: Federal income tax. So if they want to pay somebody, they have to pay a tax on it. It's equivalent to what we see on our end as employers, the percentage that's taken out.
MR. DECOSTE: Right.
MARY HULL: It's still a reduction in their expenses.
MR. DECOSTE: That's not my question, though. What I'm saying is that if a company wants to pay an employee, they've got to pay about 15 percent of that money to the government, right? The other 15 percent is paid by the employee, right? Now, on your previous examination, you testified about how you, through your investigation, learned that the Adelsons had all this cash, right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: Why go through all of this — setting up employment, W-2s, taxes — instead of just paying a lump sum of cash?
MARY HULL: I cannot answer that.
MR. DECOSTE: Let's go to the taxes now.
MR. DECOSTE: Ms. Magbanua did not report her tips — you'd agree with me on that, right?
MARY HULL: Yes.
MR. DECOSTE: That doesn't mean she wasn't working. And you were asked a question about a bar, but it's a nightclub — nightclubs, plural. That doesn't mean that she wasn't working at nightclubs, right?
MARY HULL: I have no record of her having employment at a club.
MR. DECOSTE: And again, the government is the one that's giving you the information to review — the State Attorney's Office.
MARY HULL: To answer your question fully, most people that receive tips also receive a small dollar-an-hour wage, and that's reported.
MR. DECOSTE: In your work, you've never investigated somebody that worked at Club Fate, have you?
MARY HULL: Not that particular one, no.
MR. DECOSTE: So you wouldn't know the normal practice of Club Fate, right?
MARY HULL: I know the normal practices of businesses.
MR. DECOSTE: But of a nightclub in Miami called Club Fate, you don't know, right?
MARY HULL: Not specifically.
MR. DECOSTE: At best, you can say that tips weren't claimed. As you sit here with what you have, you can't say she was not working there, right?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MR. DECOSTE: One brief second, Your Honor. Nothing further.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Redirect.
MS. NORRIS: You did review checks from Club Fate in this case, right?
MARY HULL: There were two checks written in 2015, but both of the checks bounced.
MS. NORRIS: My point was, you would agree they were checks, not cash.
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: For tips?
MARY HULL: Correct.
MS. NORRIS: I have no further questions, Judge.
JUDGE HANKINSON: Any juror has a question for this witness? Alright. You may step down. Do we need to keep her further?
MR. DECOSTE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE HANKINSON: You remain under subpoena.