- 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 believe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011