25
the statutory notices. Corporate petitioners have always seen
the substantiation issue as concerning substantiation of payment.
At trial, documents were stipulated that substantiate the
challenged management payments. Indeed, respondent, except for
some small matters of detail, essentially failed at trial to
dispute the substantiation issue. However, respondent on brief
not only continues to deny that the payments to Pertinax for
management services and to Mr. Munro for rent have been
substantiated, but now argues that Alondra and Edco were required
to and failed to substantiate their total deductions for wages
and management services.
Insofar as the issue is substantiation of payment, corporate
petitioners' motion is moot. Respondent's belated demand for
substantiation of Alondra's total deductions for wages is
unacceptable. In the period in question, Alondra had between 175
and 200 employees.12 Before briefing, respondent had challenged
only payments to Pertinax and Mr. Munro. There was no reason for
Alondra to anticipate that it would have to substantiate wages
paid to its own employees. Inasmuch as this matter was not even
argued until briefing, we consider it not to be before the Court.
Generally, we will not consider issues that are raised for the
first time at trial or on brief. Foil v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
12We do not discuss here Edco's three employees, because
respondent's notice disallowed all of Edco's $35,671 deduction
for wages and salaries.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011