- 18 -
Although he testified that, at the first settlement meeting, his
attorneys possessed “a document * * * that had all the expenses,
the fees and what have you”, he admitted that the document was
not submitted to Nomura. Nor did petitioner provide to
Mr. Maitland any confirmation of the legal fees during the second
settlement meeting. He did not dispute a statement by counsel
for respondent that “I think we’ve established you didn’t present
to him [Mr. Maitland] any bills or invoices at any time”.
Petitioner did testify: “[W]e gave them a list of our
expenses at * * * [a] point in time * * * midway through * * *
[the arbitration proceeding] give or take.” However, Nomura’s
memorandum in opposition to petitioner’s motion for partial
summary judgment states that petitioner “has not given Nomura a
single time sheet or lawyer’s bill by which Nomura could evaluate
the nature and amount of the fees”; petitioner’s response to that
statement in his reply memorandum is, in effect, an admission of
such nondisclosure, which he justifies on the basis of “privilege
and confidentiality concerns”. Those memoranda, submitted during
the arbitration proceeding, cast doubt on the accuracy of
petitioner’s trial testimony. At the very least, they indicate
that the “list” referred to contained no more than “broad
categories” of expenses, not an itemization of specific bills or
invoices, which would qualify as substantiation under section
1.62-2(e)(3), Income Tax Regs. Moreover, the “list”, which was
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011