- 12 -
the Commissioner mistakenly thought that Mr. Brody held a
partnership interest in Thunderbird and did not realize
that Mr. Brody's interest in Thunderbird was based upon his
interest in another partnership, BDB. Petitioners' trial
memorandum states as follows:
Additional evidence has been submitted to
the Court to show that the service did not intend
or know that adjustments to another partnership
[i.e., BDB] had to be made before the deficiency
could be imposed upon Petitioners. The facts and
evidence show that the I.R.S. did not properly
prepare the consent, and the deficiency issued is
not covered by the consent. [Emphasis deleted.]
Petitioners cross-motion for summary judgment is
really in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of
our opinion in Brody I. We find nothing in petitioners'
cross-motion or in petitioners' memorandum in support
thereof that leads us to believe that we erred in Brody I.
Petitioners base their cross-motion upon the "new and
additional information" submitted therewith, but they
present no basis for the Court to consider such "new and
additional information". In Brody I, both parties argued,
and the Court found that the consent is clear and
unambiguous and that there was no justification to look to
extraneous evidence in order to determine the intent of the
parties to the consent. See, e.g., Woods v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 776 (1989). Accordingly, in Brody I the Court
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011