T.C. Memo. 2003-44

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LAWRENCE ROBERT CLIFTON-BLIGH, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 10668-00. Filed February 25, 2003.

Lawrence Robert Clifton-Bligh, pro se.

Lydia A. Branche, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following

deficiencies in and additions to petitioner’s Federal income tax:

 Additions to Tax 

 Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654

 1989 $158,144 $9,047 $1,531

 1990 7,922 1,981 521

 1991 38,885 9,721 2,239

 1992 25,291 6,312 1,099

 1993 10,331 2,580 431

 1994 9,003 2,248 464
- 2 -

1 Petitioner admitted and stipulated the income amounts

determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency. See Rule

91. The only variation is that the notice of deficiency

determined petitioner realized pension income of $8,300 from

Fidelity and $22,410 from Smith Barney in 1994, whereas

petitioner admitted, and petitioner and respondent stipulated,

petitioner realized this income in 1992. Accordingly, a Rule 155

computation will be necessary.

Petitioner is deemed to have admitted that he is liable for

the additions to tax pursuant to secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654 for

the years in issue. Rule 91(f).

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure. 

After concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether

petitioner is entitled to deductions and/or losses in amounts

greater than those allowed by respondent for the years in issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

The deemed admissions, the stipulation of facts, and the attached

exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time

he filed the petition, petitioner resided in Pound Ridge, New

York.

During the years in issue, petitioner was a senior executive

of a merchant bank in Australia, president of a New York

investment company, and an underwriter with Lloyd’s of London

(Lloyd’s).
- 3 -

2 The record does not establish when the audit in this case

began, and petitioner does not argue that sec. 7491 applies to

this case.

Stephen Swain and Steven Conway were shareholders in a small

investment bank named S.J. Conway & Company (SJC). During 1987

and 1988, events occurred that made Mr. Swain want to “get out

of” SJC. In February 1988, Mr. Swain and Mr. Conway reached an

agreement for Mr. Conway to buy out Mr. Swain’s shares of SJC

(agreement). Mr. Conway agreed to make a staged payout to Mr.

Swain. 

Mr. Conway violated the agreement by failing to make

payments. This caused an acceleration of the payout. Mr. Swain

“pressed” Mr. Conway for the money he was owed. On September 9,

1988, Mr. Conway paid Mr. Swain in full. Mr. Swain did not see

any documentation regarding where the money Mr. Conway paid him

came from. 

OPINION

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner

has the burden of showing that he is entitled to any deductions.2

Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440

(1934).

Alleged Investments

Petitioner claims:

(1) He was approached by Mr. Conway to make an

investment in SJC; in September 1988 he invested 
- 4 -

approximately $125,000 in SJC; and in 1989 SJC filed

for bankruptcy;

(2) he suffered losses as a Lloyd’s underwriter;

(3) in 1991 he invested $25,000 in a company

called Marisco International Trading (Marisco) in which

Al Marisco was the principal; and Marisco “wound up” in

1992 (but petitioner testified that he was not able to

verify this);

(4) in 1984 he invested $5,000 in a company called

C Films; C Films “wound up” years later; and he lost

his entire investment in C Films; and

(5) he advanced approximately $85,000 to a company

his wife founded and ran called Stamp, Stamp, Stamp

(SSS); SSS closed in 1993; and he lost $50,000 when SSS

closed. 

We review the economic realities of transactions between

family members--i.e., the SSS transactions--with heightened

scrutiny. Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 172, 201

(1970). Petitioner relies on his own testimony to substantiate

his losses from SJC, Lloyd’s, Marisco, C Films, and SSS. The

Court is not required to accept petitioner’s unsubstantiated

testimony. Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir.

1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964).

Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding when C

Films supposedly wound up or when he “lost” this investment. 

Petitioner submitted 6 pages of a 13-page fax containing a

settlement offer and “Finality Statement - August 1996” regarding

Lloyd’s. The document does not establish that petitioner 
- 5 -

incurred or sustained losses regarding Lloyd’s during the years

in issue. 

Mr. Swain’s testimony does not support petitioner’s

assertion that he invested money in, or suffered a loss related

to, SJC. Mr. Swain had no personal knowledge regarding whether

(1) the money he received from Mr. Conway originally came from

petitioner, (2) the money was given to Mr. Conway or SJC, or (3)

the money was an investment or a loan. Mr. Swain did not see any

documentation regarding where the money Mr. Conway paid him came

from. Furthermore, Mr. Swain did not testify regarding whether

SJC went bankrupt. 

Additionally, we note that Mr. Conway and Mr. Marisco were

not called as witnesses. We infer that their testimony would not

have been favorable to petitioner. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co.

v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513

(10th Cir. 1947). 

We found petitioner’s testimony to be general, vague,

conclusory, and/or questionable in certain material respects. 

Under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to,

and generally do not, rely on petitioner’s testimony to sustain

his burden of establishing error in respondent’s determinations. 

Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 
- 6 -

689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159;

Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). 

We hold that petitioner is not entitled to claim loss

deductions in any amount for any of the years in issue relating

to SJC, Lloyd’s, Marisco, C Films, and SSS.

Remaining Issues

Petitioner did not present any evidence at trial regarding

any of the remaining issues he raised in his petition. 

Therefore, we conclude that petitioner has abandoned these

issues. Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683 (1989); Money

v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 46, 48 (1987). 

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court advised petitioner

that once the trial was finished the record would be closed and

petitioner would not be able to submit additional evidence. 

Petitioner attached to his posttrial briefs documents he argues

support the deductions and losses he claims he is entitled to for

the years in issue. Evidence must be submitted at trial;

documents attached to briefs and statements therein are not

evidence. Rule 143(b); Lombard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-

154 n.3, affd. without published opinion 57 F.3d 1066 (4th Cir.

1995); Wicker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-431 n.15, affd.

without published opinion 50 F.3d 12 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, we disregard these documents in reaching our

decision.
- 7 -

We conclude that petitioner is not entitled to deductions or

losses in amounts greater than those allowed by respondent for

the years in issue. To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.