- 11 -
1980, at establishing various businesses. In support of those
representations petitioner attached appendices to his briefs,
which contained many of the exhibits excluded at trial as well as
additional material not presented at trial. Neither statements
in briefs nor attachments to briefs constitute admissible
evidence, and neither may be considered by the Court. See Rule
143(b); Bialo v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1132, 1140 (1987); Kwong
v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 959, 967 n.11 (1976); Perkins v.
Commissioner, 40 T.C. 330, 340 (1963).3
2. 1999 and 2000
Petitioner’s evidence of business use for his three
properties is no more convincing for 1999 and 2000 than it is for
1996-98. Nevertheless, as we said supra, respondent, in effect,
concedes that petitioner used the Bethlehem property (but not his
other two properties) in carrying on a trade or business during
1999 and 2000.
On petitioner’s Schedules C for both 1999 and 2000, he
claims 11 expense items. For 1999, respondent challenges
portions of six of those items, and, for 2000, he challenges
portions of five. Two of those disallowed expenses (interest and
taxes, presumably associated with his other two properties) are
allowed as Schedule A deductions. Petitioner has failed to
3 Consistent with that principle, the appendices were
detached from petitioner’s brief and reply brief and returned to
petitioner pursuant to an order of this Court dated July 7, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011