DocketNumber: Docket No. 23320-83.
Citation Numbers: 55 T.C.M. 1457, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 378, 1988 T.C. Memo. 345
Filed Date: 8/3/1988
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUCKLEY,
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1980 Federal income tax in the amount of $ 3,334, together with an addition to tax under section 6653(a) in the amount of $ 166.70. Respondent's sole adjustment related to the disallowance of $ 13,348.81 in 1980 of claimed charitable contributions to the Universal Life Church (ULC).
Some of the facts are*379 stipulated and they are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners were husband and wife during the years 1976 through 1980 and they were divorced during 1981. They filed a joint return for their 1980 tax year. When the petition herein was filed, they resided at Pasadena, California.
Petitioners concede they are not entitled to deduct the claimed contribution to the ULC. They contend, however, that they are entitled to the benefits of income averaging in their 1980 tax year. Respondent's position is two-fold: first, he contends that petitioners are not entitled to income average where they did not elect to do so on their return, and second he contends that they should not be entitled to do so where they failed to raise the issue of income average in any pleadings in this matter. Respondent goes on to contend alternatively that if the Court determines that petitioners may utilize income averaging, respondent is entitled to recompute the taxable income in the base years for the purpose of determining averaged tax, even though the base years are closed due to the running of the statute of limitations.
The facts are as follows: Petitioners were husband and wife during 1976, *380 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980. They were divorced during 1981. Petitioners timely filed their 1980 joint Federal income tax return. Petitioners did not claim the benefits of income averaging on that return. They agree they are not entitled to deduct the charitable contribution of $ 13,348.81 allegedly paid to the ULC during 1980 which they claimed on the return.
Petitioners did not raise the issue of income averaging in any pleadings filed with this Court. Not until the date set for trial herein did they raise this issue with the Court.
Petitioner James E. Junio filed a joint return for 1976 1 and single returns for 1977 and 1978. Petitioners filed a joint return for 1979. Petitioner Karen M. Junio's 1976, 1977 and 1978 tax returns have not been provided. Respondent does not stipulate to the correctness of any of these returns.
We deal first with the question whether we should allow petitioners to raise, on the date set for trial, this new issue regarding income averaging. One of the factors we must consider is whether trying this new issue, raised some twenty months after the petition*381 was filed, places respondent at an unfair disadvantage.
Our Rule 41(a) provides that a pleading may be amended once as a matter of courseat any time before a responsive pleading is served, and thereafter, amendment may be made by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Petitioners have never requested leave of this Court to amend their petition and did not raise this new issue until the date set for trial herein. Further, respondent strongly objects to their attempt to raise new issues on the day of trial and we believe respondent's objections to be well-taken.
This case does not present the situation where an issue has been tried by express or implied consent of the parties, in which event we treat the issue as if raised in the pleadings. Rule 41(b). Rather, it presents a situation in which respondent was faced,
We held in
We will not, as a general rule, consider issues which have not been pleaded. Whether an issue has been properly raised depends upon whether the opposing party has been given fair notice of the matter in controversy. Rule 31(a). See
Since petitioners have conceded that respondent's only determination in the statutory notice was correct, and because they have not addressed the imposition of the addition to tax under section 6653(a), an issue upon which they bear the burden of proof, Rule 142(a),
1. The only name appearing on this return was that of petitioner James E. Junio. ↩