- 12 - into account various expenditures made jointly by petitioner husband and petitioner wife. The 1989 net worth computation effectively treats these asset purchases and other joint expenditures as being financed by petitioner husband’s unreported income. The 1989 net worth computation does not, however, account for assets and income attributable to petitioner wife. In particular, it fails to account for petitioner wife’s after- tax income of $10,239, which exceeds the $9,845 of expenditures reflected in respondent’s net worth computation as included in the 1989 notice of deficiency.6 In addition, petitioner wife credibly testified that petitioners received approximately $3,000 to $4,000 in wedding 6 In an attempt to overcome the failure of the 1989 criminal net worth summary to account for assets and income of petitioner wife, respondent argued for the first time at trial that the 1989 notice of deficiency understated petitioners’ 1989 personal expenditures. On brief, respondent asserts for the first time that petitioners’ 1989 expenditures exceeded $20,000. Respondent contends that this sum includes an indeterminate amount of expenditures (relating either to petitioners jointly or else to petitioner wife) for which respondent admits there is no documentation in the record, instead basing his contentions on various assumptions. Respondent has never sought an increased deficiency for 1989 based on any such increased amount of expenditures and has never sought to amend his pleading in this case. We will not consider this issue that was raised for the first time at trial. See Vetco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 579, 589 (1990). In any event, even if we were to consider this issue, the newly asserted amount of joint personal expenditures would not cure the fundamental defects and internal inconsistencies of the 1989 net worth computation, as described in the text above.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011