- 4 -
We reject each of Ahmed’s arguments. Rule 155 proceedings
cannot be used to raise new issues that were not litigated at the
trial of a case or to relitigate issues that were previously
decided. Rule 155(c); Molasky v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 683, 685
(1988), affd. on this issue 897 F.2d 334 (8th Cir. 1990); Cloes
v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 933, 935 (1982).
Below we address in more detail disputed items relating to
the parties’ respective Rule 155 computations.3
Ahmed 1997 Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax
Ahmed untimely filed his and his wife’s 1997 joint Federal
income tax return. The parties did not stipulate, nor did we
decide in our opinion, whether for 1997 Ahmed is liable for the
section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax determined by respondent in
the notice of deficiency.
Ahmed, however, did not introduce evidence at the trial,
and he did not argue on brief, that he had reasonable cause for
failure to timely file his 1997 joint Federal income tax return.
Arguments not made on brief may be deemed abandoned. Mendes v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 312-313 (2003). We treat Ahmed as
having abandoned this issue.
3 Some items we address for purposes of clarification, even
though they may not be appropriately raised in this Rule 155
proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011