- 6 -
Mr. Gordon's motion
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Gordon asks that we
reconsider our holding with respect to the equitable estoppel
issue. In that motion, Mr. Gordon essentially restates the
arguments that he made on brief and has not shown any unusual
circumstances or substantial error. Accordingly, we shall deny
Mr. Gordon's motion.
Ms. Gordon's Motion
In her motion for reconsideration, Ms. Gordon asks that we
reconsider our holding with respect to the innocent spouse issue
and for the first time advances arguments relating to the impact
of section 1256(f)(3)(B) and Mr. Gordon's alleged hedging activi-
ties on the resolution of that issue. Ms. Gordon argues that we
erred in finding that she failed to show that the 1988 NOL
deduction is a grossly erroneous item within the meaning of
section 6013(e)(2)(B) because "respondent has never contended
that Mr. Gordon's hedging allegations, or the existence of
�1256(f)(3)(B), provided a basis for finding that his claimed
1986 net trading loss did not constitute a grossly erroneous
item." Ms. Gordon had the burden of proving that she satisfied
the requirements of section 6013(e)(2)(B). Her burden was not
altered as a result of respondent's having advanced in support of
respondent's position under section 6013(e)(2)(B) reasons other
than those relating to the hedging exception in section
1256(f)(3)(B), which other reasons we rejected in our Opinion. A
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011