- 6 -
in a plan established by the Government or by an agency or
instrumentality of the Government and that petitioner
participated in such a retirement plan with Central Washington
University in 2001.
2. Whether Petitioner May Contend That She Made Payments
to an Entity that Qualifies as a Trust Under Section
219(e)(2)
Petitioner contended for the first time in her posttrial
brief3 that her $1,916 payment to a French pension plan in 2001
qualified as a retirement contribution under section 219(e)(2)
because she paid it to an entity that generally corresponds to a
trust as defined in section 501(c)(18). Respondent asserts that
petitioner raised that issue untimely. We agree.
Generally, we do not consider an issue raised for the first
time on brief. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 891
(1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Torres v. Commissioner,
88 T.C. 702, 718 (1987); Seligman v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 191,
198-199 (1985), affd. 796 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1986); Philbrick v.
Commissioner, 27 T.C. 346, 353 (1956); Hettler v. Commissioner,
16 T.C. 528, 535 (1951). Petitioner raised this issue too late
for either party to offer relevant evidence. At trial,
respondent had no reason to, and did not, offer evidence relating
to whether petitioner’s French pension plan generally
3 Respondent filed an opening brief, petitioner filed an
answering brief, and respondent filed a reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011