Hubert Joubert - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          with this Court.  A trial was held on May 22, 2007, in San                  
          Francisco, California.                                                      
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.  Parties’ Contentions                                                    
               Petitioner asserts that he believed that the $33,671.14                
          withheld on the SBC Communications, Inc., pension distribution              
          constituted full payment of his Federal income tax for 2002.  In            
          addition, he asserts that he has spent all of his money and has             
          nothing left.  In his posttrial brief, petitioner asserts that he           
          spent the money to pay his bills and for the benefit of his                 
          nonprofit foundation, “Starlight Productions, an alternative                
          juvenile facility and rodeo school for at-risk youth in southern            
          California.”  In support of that contention, he has submitted a             
          self-prepared statement, incorporated in his brief, detailing               
          when and how he spent $123,705 of the pension distribution on               
          Starlight Productions.5                                                     
               Respondent argues, citing section 402(a) and 402(e)(1)(A),             
          that petitioner must include in his 2002 income the $168,355.71             
          pension distribution.  Regarding the Social Security benefits,              


               5  At trial, petitioner testified that he had spent $123,705           
          of the QDRO pension distribution on Starlight Productions but               
          chose not to detail the expenditures at that time.  Statements in           
          brief are not evidence where they are not contained in the joint            
          stipulation of facts or introduced as evidence at trial, where              
          respondent would have been afforded the opportunity to cross-               
          examine petitioner and provide rebuttal or impeachment testimony.           
          See Rule 143(b).                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007