- 5 -
legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving
party. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441-
442, supplementing 110 T.C. 172 (1998); Stoody v. Commissioner,
67 T.C. 643, 644 (1977), supplementing 66 T.C. 710 (1976).
In their motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate,
petitioners merely rehash arguments considered and rejected by
the Court in Johnson II. When the Court granted petitioners'
motion to file reply #1, instead of presenting evidence regarding
their net worth, see Estate of Hubberd v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.
335, 341 (1992); Dixson Intl. Serv. Corp. v. Commissioner, 94
T.C. 708, 719 (1990); see also McCoy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-423, petitioners simply provided additional net worth
statements that drastically changed the amount claimed to be
petitioners' net worth,3 which gave the Court reason to question
each statement's veracity. From a review of the record, the
Court is still of the opinion that no evidentiary hearing is
necessary pursuant to Rule 232 and that petitioners have failed
to establish that they met the net worth requirements of section
7430. See Rule 232(a)(2) ("A motion for reasonable litigation or
administrative costs ordinarily will be disposed of without a
hearing"; emphasis added).
3 The first net worth schedule claimed petitioners' joint
net worth was $3,806,248; the second net worth schedule claimed
petitioners' joint net worth was ($3,891,976); and the third net
worth schedule claimed petitioners' joint net worth was
$1,097,312.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011