- 10 - mathematically generated computational items’.” Harris v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 121, 124 (1992) (quoting Home Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 265, 269 (1988), affd. 875 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1989)), affd. 16 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 1994). It may not, however, be used to raise “new issues”, Rule 155(c), which generally has been construed in this context to mean matters which would require consideration of evidence not already contained in the record, see Harris v. Commissioner, supra at 124; Cloes v. Commissioner, supra at 935-937; Estate of Street v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-568. Hence, while petitioners’ entitlement to section 164 deductions was in one sense an unpled new matter, the underlying factual predicate, as petitioners interpreted respondent’s stipulations, was not a new issue under the standard enunciated for Rule 155. In this connection, we note that respondent had the opportunity to present evidence at trial regarding the characterization of the taxes, beyond the stipulations, and chose not to do so. Moreover, even now in extensive postopinion submissions respondent has not alluded to any evidence which might have been adduced to show the taxes were other than “income taxes”, or to any further requirements for the deductions. Thus, while we acknowledge that respondent’s litigation strategy may perhaps have been affected by petitioners’ failure expressly to raise the deduction issue prior to trial, we believePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011