- 17 -
consent of the parties, that issue is treated in all respects as
if it had been raised in the pleadings. Thus, where respondent
raises an issue that could result in an increased deficiency
without formally amending his pleading and that issue is tried
with petitioner’s express or implied consent, the requirement in
section 6214(a) that respondent make a claim for the increased
deficiency is satisfied. See Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88,
93 (1988).
In his trial memorandum, respondent asserted a claim for
amounts greater than those stated in the notices of deficiency,
based on his belief that petitioner did not sign his tax returns
and therefore did not file valid returns. A relatively large
portion of petitioner’s trial testimony addressed this issue.
Thus, petitioner was aware that respondent disagreed with
petitioner’s position regarding the validity of his tax returns.
Petitioner could have raised an objection to respondent’s
assertion either in his trial memorandum, during trial, or in his
posttrial brief. He did not, however, submit a trial memorandum
or file a posttrial brief, and he did not raise any objection
during trial.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we do not believe
petitioner was either surprised or disadvantaged by respondent’s
claim that petitioner is liable for increased deficiencies.
Thus, we conclude that respondent has asserted a claim for an
increased deficiency as required by section 6214(a).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011