- 3 -
marketability discount.2 Respondent has filed an objection to
petitioner's motion.
Reconsideration under Rule 161 serves the limited purpose of
correcting substantial errors of fact or law, and allows for the
introduction of newly discovered evidence that the moving party,
in the exercise of due diligence, could not have introduced
before the filing of an opinion. See Estate of Trenchard v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-232; see also Westbrook v.
Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 879 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1993-634. The granting of a motion for
reconsideration rests within the discretion of the Court, and we
usually do not exercise our discretion absent a showing of
unusual circumstances or substantial error. CWT Farms, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1054, 1057 (1982), affd. 755 F.2d 790
(11th Cir. 1985); see also Westbrook v. Commissioner, supra at
879; Estate of Trenchard v. Commissioner, supra.
Generally, the Court will not grant a motion for
reconsideration to resolve issues that could have been raised, or
to hear arguments that could have been made, before the filing of
2 In Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-255, affd.
without published opinion 91 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 1996), the Court
was asked to determine the marketability discount that applied to
the freely-traded value of certain stock. In arriving at the
amount of this discount, we set forth and evaluated numerous
factors which affect marketability. We concluded that "the
marketability discount * * * [was] no greater than the 30 percent
allowed by respondent." Id. Contrary to petitioner's belief, we
did not determine that the marketability discount equaled 30
percent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011