Beverly Gordon - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          motion, Stoody v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 643, 644 (1977), or to              
          hear arguments that could have been made before the filing of an            
          opinion, Estate of Trenchard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-              
          232.  Moreover, as we observed in Koufman v. Commissioner, 69               
          T.C. 473, 476-477 (1977):                                                   
               This Court has an extraordinarily heavy volume of                      
               cases, and in many of them, the Court decides an issue                 
               against one of the parties because of his failure to                   
               carry his burden of proof or to perform some other act.                
               If the Court granted a second chance to every party who                
               lost because of his failure to act in some manner, the                 
               Court clearly could not keep abreast of its work.  In                  
               effect, we would be telling the parties that if they                   
               were not satisfied with the first decision, try again.                 
               However, on previous occasions, we have denied a peti-                 
               tioner's motion to vacate the decision and reconsider                  
               the opinion where the only basis for these motions was                 
               the petitioner's unexcused failure to raise certain                    
               issues earlier. * * *                                                  
          Similarly, in denying the taxpayers' motion for reconsideration             
          in Long v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 724, 727 (1979), remanded on               
          another issue 660 F.2d 416 (10th Cir. 1981), we observed:                   
                    A party is entitled to have his day in court; both                
               parties are entitled to this, but neither party is                     
               entitled to have more than one fair, reasonable oppor-                 
               tunity to establish his claim or defense.  To allow                    
               more would be to protract litigation to the extent                     
               which would preclude the administration of justice.                    
               [Selwyn Operating Corp. v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 593,                
               595 (1928).]                                                           
                    The parties cannot try their cases with hind-                     
               By way of background, we shall restate certain of the                  
          findings and conclusions in our Opinion that are pertinent to our           
          consideration of the respective motions for reconsideration of              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011