- 16 -
States v. Henderson, 375 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1967); Bouchard v.
Commissioner, 229 F.2d 703 (7th Cir. 1956), affg. T.C. Memo.
1954-243; Haag v. Commissioner, supra at 615.
Petitioner offered no convincing proof that the funds were
actually lent to him. The “Agreement to Change BP Concessions to
a C Corporation” signed by petitioner and Mr. Foster mentions the
shareholders’ intentions to treat the distribution as a loan.
However, this document was prepared more than 4-1/2 years after
the board meeting occurred and was drafted in support of an
attempt to settle the issues of this case. No other documents
were submitted regarding the alleged loan. The Court is not
required to, and in this case we do not, accept petitioner’s
unsubstantiated testimony regarding this issue. See Wood v.
Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1965), affg. 41 T.C.
593 (1964).
C. Issues Raised Initially in Petitioners’
Posttrial Briefs
In their posttrial briefs, petitioners raised for the first
time the issues of abatement of interest and penalties, an
entitlement to spousal defenses, a request for an installment
agreement, and a request for other reasonable alternatives to
collection. These issues were not raised in the petition to the
Court or at trial. Nor were they raised at the collection due
process hearing. Generally, in a section 6330 proceeding the
Court is not obligated to consider requests for abatement of
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