- 8 -
their respective positions. Rule 31(a). It is well settled that
this Court ordinarily will not consider issues that have not been
pleaded. See Estate of Mandels v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 61, 73
(1975); Estate of Horvath v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 551, 556
(1973). An issue is not properly raised unless the opposing
party is given fair notice and is not surprised or put at a
substantial disadvantage. Markwardt v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
989, 997 (1975); Estate of Horvath v. Commissioner, supra at 555.
Refusal to consider an issue not raised in the pleadings is
particularly proper where the issue is a factual one and where
respondent is unaware of petitioners' position until trial.
Estate of Mandels v. Commissioner, supra at 73. In this case,
petitioners submitted new medical receipts to respondent the
morning of trial. Respondent did not have an adequate
opportunity to evaluate this new issue and petitioners' evidence
supporting it. Petitioners' delay in raising this issue is
prejudicial to respondent. See Russo v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 28
(1992); O'Rourke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-161.
Accordingly, petitioners' claim of additional medical
expenses is not properly before the Court, and we decline to
consider it.4
4 Moreover, even if the Court were to consider this issue,
the record is insufficient to establish that petitioners are
entitled to medical deductions in excess of those claimed on
their return. At trial, petitioners introduced into evidence a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011