- 11 -
this is a new issue that was not raised at the hearing, and
therefore it is not subject to review by the Court pursuant to
Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002). We disagree.
Petitioner raised this issue at the hearing, and it is properly
before the Court.
Petitioner presented no documentary evidence to support his
testimony that he submitted to the IRS the alleged checks that he
claims were not applied to his account.2 The Court is not
required to accept petitioner’s unsubstantiated testimony. See
Wood v. Commissioner, supra. As stated supra, we found
petitioner’s testimony to be general, vague, conclusory, and/or
questionable in certain material respects. Under the
circumstances presented here, we are not required to, and
generally do not, rely on petitioner’s testimony to conclude that
he submitted any of these three checks to respondent or that
respondent failed to apply these amounts to petitioner’s account.
See Lerch v. Commissioner, supra; Geiger v. Commissioner, supra;
Tokarski v. Commissioner, supra.
2 Petitioner attached to his posttrial brief documents to
support his claim that payments were not appropriately applied to
his account. Evidence must be submitted at trial; documents
attached to briefs and statements therein are not evidence. Rule
143(b); Lombard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-154 n.3, affd.
without published opinion 57 F.3d 1066 (4th Cir. 1995); Wicker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-431 n.15, affd. without published
opinion 50 F.3d 12 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we disregard
these documents in reaching our decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011