Alvin S. Kanofsky - Page 11

                                       - 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