- 16 -
petitioner’s name reflect hundreds of transactions, a large
percentage of which appear personal in nature, and petitioner has
not suggested any way of identifying those which allegedly
represent business expenses. The admission of these materials
would therefore do little, if anything, to provide the requisite
substantiation for petitioner’s expenditures.
Furthermore, even if the statements offered support for the
disputed deductions, we would deny their admission on grounds of
prejudice to respondent. By submitting the documents after
trial, petitioner deprived respondent of any opportunity to
examine or question them during the proceeding. Given the
background in this case, we cannot countenance such tardiness.
We again affirm our previous denial.
B. Petitioner’s Argument That the Notice of Deficiency is
Time Barred
In his opening brief, petitioner puts forward the argument
that the notice of deficiency is time barred because his
representative lacked authority to extend the statute of
limitations for assessment. This issue was not mentioned in the
petition, in petitioner’s trial memorandum, or at trial.
It is well settled that a matter raised for the first time
on brief will not be considered when to do so would prejudice the
opposing party. DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 891-892
(1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Markwardt v.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011