- 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