Jacob and Chana Pinson, et al. - Page 47




                                       - 47 -                                         
               of limitations prescribed by Section 6511(d)(3)(A),                    
               which is generally 10 years from the date of filing of                 
               the return.  In the event that the Court holds that                    
               either or both the special commission payments and the                 
               DPP payments constitute U.S. source income, and such                   
               holding or holdings are sustained on appeal or not                     
               appealed, the petitioners reserve the right to elect to                
               take a deduction for the stipulated foreign taxes paid                 
               in lieu of the foreign tax credit for any or all of the                
               years of the relevant period.                                          
          We, however, conclude that petitioners may not reserve such a               
          right in the procedural posture presented.                                  
               Petitioners have raised for the first time on brief not only           
          their entitlement to a deduction under section 164 but also an              
          issue of statutory and regulatory interpretation.  It is the                
          well-settled rule of this Court that a matter raised for the                
          first time on brief will not be considered when to do so would              
          prejudice the opposing party.  See DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.           
          858, 891-892 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Markwardt            
          v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 997 (1975).  Such prejudice arises            
          when the opposing party would be prevented from presenting                  
          evidence that might have been offered if the issue had been                 
          timely raised, or would otherwise be surprised and placed at a              
          disadvantage.  See DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 891-892;                 
          Markwardt v. Commissioner, supra at 997.                                    
               Here, respondent was denied the opportunity to present                 
          evidence concerning whether petitioners satisfied the                       
          requirements for a deduction.  Respondent’s choices as to which             
          items to stipulate and which to litigate might also have been               





Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011