- 8 -
returns [prepared by him] without cogent proof that they are
incorrect.” As discussed infra in Section I.B. and C.,
petitioner has failed to furnish such proof.
B. Failure To Challenge Income Adjustments on Brief
Other than making a vague assertion that he “was requires
[sic] to and fully complied with the filing of * * * [the 1988
return] consistent with the 1099 information” (which suggests a
mistaken belief that such reporting was required even though
petitioner disputed the information), on brief, petitioner
challenges only one of the income items: the short-term capital
gain from the sale of 240 shares of IBM (the IBM stock).5 If an
argument is not pursued on brief, we may conclude that it has
been abandoned. See Clajon Gas Co. v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
197, 213 n.17 (2002); Davis v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 1 n.1
(2002); Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 n.4 (2001);
Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).
C. Sale of the IBM Stock--Alleged Theft of Sale Proceeds
Petitioner argues that there is no proof that Merrill Lynch
sold the IBM stock at petitioner’s request or that petitioner
received the proceeds of that sale. During the trial, petitioner
acknowledged that the Merrill Lynch tax reporting statement for
5 During the trial, petitioner admitted that the $9,022
received from the National Bank of Washington constituted a
premature distribution from a qualified retirement account. On
brief, he challenges only the imposition of the sec. 72(t)
10-percent additional tax on that distribution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011