
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1708                                   JOHN BRESNAHAN,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                          ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            John Bresnahan on brief pro se.            ______________            Loretta  C.  Argrett,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Teresa   E.            ____________________                                   ___________        McLaughlin and Thomas  J. Sawyer, Attorneys, Tax  Division, Department        __________     _________________        of Justice, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  FEBRUARY 20, 1998                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  We have carefully considered the record in                 ___________            this  case,  including the  briefs  of  the parties  and  the            decision of the  court below.  We affirm  essentially for the            reasons given  by the  tax court  in its  memorandum opinion,            dated November 5, 1996.                   The  two  letters  attached  to  petitioner's  appellate            brief, but not introduced into evidence before the tax court,            are  insufficient to  sustain this  appeal since we  place no            reliance on evidence not introduced below.   See John Hancock                                                         ___ ____________            Mut. Life Ins.  Co. v. United States,  155 F.2d 977,  978 n.1            ___________________    _____________            (1st  Cir. 1946)  (refusing to  consider  evidence on  appeal            which had not first been introduced in the court below).                  Affirmed.                 ________                                         -2-
