- 7 -
petitioner has failed to raise, for our consideration, an issue
regarding her entitlement to any such benefit.
B. Petitioner’s Arguments on Brief
Petitioner argues that the notice was both untimely and
“insufficient”. Petitioner did not by pleading or motion raise
the affirmative defense of statute of limitations or claim lack
of jurisdiction. See Rules 39 and 40. Nevertheless, at trial
and on brief, petitioner has pursued the theory that the notice
was both untimely and insufficient. Those arguments are premised
upon petitioner’s position that she and Mr. Quarterman filed a
timely 1995 joint return. Petitioner also argues that she is
taxable on only one-half of the interest income attributed to her
by respondent and that she is not liable for the additions to
tax, issues not specifically addressed in the petition.
Respondent has not objected that petitioner has attempted to try
issues not raised by the pleadings. See Rule 41(b). We shall
treat petitioner’s claims as having been raised by the pleadings.
No amendment of the petition is required. See id.
II. The Notice Was Both Timely and Sufficient
The stipulation of facts entered into by the parties
includes an original “Certification of Lack of Record”, Form
3050, which states that respondent’s Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
4(...continued)
the need to make a payment toward anything owed.”
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