Andrew S. and Linda Hayworth Brenner - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          Although he testified that, at the first settlement meeting, his            
          attorneys possessed “a document * * * that had all the expenses,            
          the fees and what have you”, he admitted that the document was              
          not submitted to Nomura.  Nor did petitioner provide to                     
          Mr. Maitland any confirmation of the legal fees during the second           
          settlement meeting.  He did not dispute a statement by counsel              
          for respondent that “I think we’ve established you didn’t present           
          to him [Mr. Maitland] any bills or invoices at any time”.                   
               Petitioner did testify:  “[W]e gave them a list of our                 
          expenses at * * * [a] point in time * * * midway through * * *              
          [the arbitration proceeding] give or take.”  However, Nomura’s              
          memorandum in opposition to petitioner’s motion for partial                 
          summary judgment states that petitioner “has not given Nomura a             
          single time sheet or lawyer’s bill by which Nomura could evaluate           
          the nature and amount of the fees”; petitioner’s response to that           
          statement in his reply memorandum is, in effect, an admission of            
          such nondisclosure, which he justifies on the basis of “privilege           
          and confidentiality concerns”.  Those memoranda, submitted during           
          the arbitration proceeding, cast doubt on the accuracy of                   
          petitioner’s trial testimony.  At the very least, they indicate             
          that the “list” referred to contained no more than “broad                   
          categories” of expenses, not an itemization of specific bills or            
          invoices, which would qualify as substantiation under section               
          1.62-2(e)(3), Income Tax Regs.  Moreover, the “list”, which was             

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011