- 9 -
debt would be damages excludable from gross income under section
104(a)(2). We agree with respondent that nothing in the record
would support that claim.
Petitioner asserts that respondent should have conceded this
case at the conclusion of trial but that respondent’s counsel
refused to do so, allegedly based on a posttrial ex parte
communication with the Court. At the conclusion of trial, as
reflected in the transcript, the Court directed respondent’s
counsel to brief cases dealing with settled or compromised
claims. No off-the-record or ex parte communications between the
Court and respondent’s counsel have occurred. Respondent’s brief
discusses the evidence and case law supporting respondent’s
position. Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s order or
rules concerning briefs.
Petitioner has also complained that MBNA presumably received
a deduction for the amount reported on Form 1099-C as income to
petitioner. MBNA’s tax liability is not before the Court. It is
unnecessary, in any event, that a correlation exists between
petitioner’s income, as a cash basis taxpayer, and deductions of
MBNA, presumably an accrual basis taxpayer. Other arguments and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011