- 24 -
reflected on Forms W-2G). Respondent did not determine in the
notice of deficiency, assert in the answer, or pursuant to Rule
41 move to amend the pleadings to assert that Mr. Gagliardi had
any unreported gambling winnings for the years in issue.
Generally, we will not consider issues that are raised for the
first time at trial or on brief. See Foil v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. 376, 418 (1989), affd. 920 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1990);
Markwardt v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 997 (1975).
Accordingly, respondent’s proposed findings of fact regarding
whether Mr. Gagliardi underreported his gambling winnings in
amounts greater than those determined in the notice of deficiency
for the years in issue are specious.16
D. The Expert Witnesses
Respondent also attempted to discredit the two expert
witnesses that testified at trial.
1. Dr. Suzanne Pike
Dr. Suzanne Pike, a clinical psychologist with over 25
years’ experience who specializes and has extensive experience in
treating patients with gambling disorders (over 500 such
patients), testified as an expert witness on behalf of
16 To the extent that respondent’s briefs might be
construed as respondent’s arguing for an increased deficiency, we
will not consider such arguments even if they are raised in
respondent’s briefs. See Foil v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 376, 418
(1989), affd. 920 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1990); Markwardt v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 997 (1975).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008