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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-