-40-
$10,000 from Mr. Kopty’s IRA during the year.
The second so-called computational error alleged by
petitioners involves deductions for moving expenses under section
217(a). Apparently, during the audit of petitioners’ returns,
petitioners submitted a letter in which they claimed moving
expenses in the amount of $5,770 for 1999 and $1,950 for 2000.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent did not determine that
petitioners were allowed moving expenses. Petitioners ask the
Court “to order the moving expense correction.”
Petitioners did not raise this matter in their petition.
This is a new issue that was raised for the first time after
trial. As stated above, we do not consider an issue that has not
been pleaded. See, e.g., Frentz v. Commissioner, supra; Sicanoff
Vegetable Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. This is particularly
true in a case like this where the issue cannot be considered
without surprise and prejudice to the other party. See Estate of
Mandels v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, we will not
consider it.
Finally, petitioners argue that interest on underpayments
under section 6601(a) should be computed from the date when the
tax return was due, taking into consideration extensions of time
to file, rather than from the original due date of the return.
Petitioners ask the Court to rule that interest on any
underpayment for taxable 1999 should begin on December 15, 2000,
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008