- 12 -
Neither has petitioner established that he prevailed with
respect to any of the issues raised in the amended petition.
The additional issues raised in the amended petition were
not formally before the Court until December 28, 1998, when the
amended petition was filed. See Rule 34(b); Sicanoff Vegetable
Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 1056, 1066 (1957), and cases
cited therein (holding that an issue not properly raised in the
petition is not before the Court). Petitioner filed the amended
petition to conform his pleadings to the parties’ stipulations,
but only after a stipulation of settled issues was filed with the
Court. As such, the pleadings in the amended petition reflected
the adjustments negotiated by the parties. The amended petition
raised issues with respect to the total mortgage interest paid,
the total passive activity interest paid, and the total
investment interest paid in 1989 through 1992, petitioner’s
entitlement to a capital loss carryforward with respect to
Tamperproof, Identrol, and Barbour Hill, and petitioner’s
entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction.
Although the stipulation of settled issues reflects that
certain adjustments were made with respect to petitioner’s 1992
tax year, there is (except as noted below) nothing in the record
to allow us to decide to what extent petitioner prevailed with
respect to any of these issues as initially raised by petitioner.
Neither does the record allow us to compute how the various
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011