- 12 -
in the amounts which respondent has included in his gross income.
Accordingly, petitioner is not estopped from denying that he did
not receive such bribe payments.
B. Petitioner’s Burden of Proof
We have taken petitioner’s proposed findings of fact into
account even though we were not required to as petitioner
violated Rule 151(e)(3), which prescribes how litigants are to
treat proposed findings of fact.2 See Van Eck v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-570. Petitioner failed to include separate,
numbered, statements of fact, or to object to respondent’s
proposed findings in his reply. Petitioner appeared to concede
in his statement of “facts adduced at trial” that petitioner
received a $105,000 bribe from Toll.
Petitioner has failed to prove respondent’s determinations
to be incorrect. Petitioner does not attempt to meet his burden
2 Rule 151(e)(3) states that briefs shall contain:
Proposed findings of fact (in the opening brief or
briefs), based on the evidence, in the form of numbered
statements, each of which shall be complete and shall
consist of a concise statement of essential fact and
not a recital of testimony nor a discussion or argument
relating to the evidence or the law. In each such
numbered statement, there shall be inserted references
to the pages of the transcript or the exhibits or other
sources relied upon to support the statement. In an
answering or reply brief, the party shall set forth any
objections, together with the reasons therefor, to any
proposed findings of any other party, showing the
numbers of the statements to which the objections are
directed; in addition, the party may set forth
alternative proposed findings of fact.
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