- 8 -
In her answering brief, respondent objects to many of
petitioner's proposed findings of fact as not being supported by
evidence in the record. Because petitioner has made it virtually
impossible for the Court to verify any of his proposed findings
that were objected to by respondent, and because he has violated
Rule 151(e)(3), the Court, in making its findings, has
disregarded all of petitioner's proposed findings to which
respondent has objected.4 See Van Eck v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-570. In the future, we admonish petitioner’s
counsel to adhere to our Rules of Practice and Procedure in
matters before this Court.
2. Taxability of Proceeds
Respondent determined that ITT forgave $212,000 of a
$237,000 debt that petitioner owed it, in return for a payment of
$25,000. Thus, respondent determined, petitioner realized
$212,000 of COD income, and he should have recognized this amount
in 1987. Petitioner must prove respondent’s determination
4 We note, however, that our review of the record, taking
into account the credibility of the witnesses, would not
otherwise have allowed us to make findings in accordance with any
of petitioner’s proposed findings of fact to which respondent
objected.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011