Alfred E. Gallade - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          purpose of showing that petitioner asked respondent to waive the            
          section 6661 penalty.                                                       
               Petitioner reserved objections to certain stipulated facts             
          proposed by respondent.  Petitioner did not address the                     
          objections until his reply brief.  Relying on Midkiff v.                    
          Commissioner, 96 T.C. 724, 734 (1991), affd. sub nom. Noguchi v.            
          Commissioner, 992 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1993), respondent argues               
          that because of petitioner’s failure to address his evidentiary             
          objections at trial or on opening brief, petitioner has abandoned           
          the objections reserved in the parties’ stipulation of facts.               
          Midkiff held that objections not addressed in briefs are                    
          abandoned.  While that case did not distinguish between opening             
          and reply briefs, it would be unreasonable to allow a party to              
          wait until filing a reply brief to address the party's                      
          objections, because it eliminates the opportunity for the adverse           
          party to respond.  We have found that petitioner in these cases             
          waited until he filed his reply brief to address his objections;            
          accordingly, we hold that petitioner did not preserve his                   
          The Plan Distribution                                                       

          5 Despite our holding that petitioner’s objections were                     
          abandoned, we note that we did not rely on the statements                   
          contained in the declarations of Bruce A. Hughes, which                     
          petitioner argued are hearsay.  Furthermore, the substance of               
          respondent’s internal request for technical advice was not                  
          relevant to the legal conclusions reached in these cases.                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011