- 29 -
does not contain any evidence of what such a fee might be.
Moreover, petitioners' apportionment methodology is an argument
which could have been made before the filing of our prior
opinion.10 Generally, we do not grant reconsideration to resolve
issues which could have been raised during the prior proceedings
because the parties cannot try their cases with hindsight. CWT
Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, as to the
client incorporation fees, apart from the correction of a
computational error,11 we do not reconsider our holdings with
respect to the section 482 allocations of income to INC.
On a final note regarding the section 482 allocations, we
are satisfied that, even if LTD were entitled to deduct (1) the
section 482 allocations of income to INC as additional
compensation expenses (we address such correlative adjustments to
LTD's income, infra), (2) its direct costs (except for the
interest amounts in the "Interest Income" category, which have
already been excluded in our prior opinion), and (3) the
compensation expenses for the fees already paid to INC, LTD would
nevertheless have an excess of income over expenses for each of
10 As we stated, supra, petitioners did not provide an
apportionment methodology in the first proceeding, and the record
did not provide sufficient information to establish an
apportionment methodology of our own.
11 The amount of LTD's revenues from "Client incorporation and
trust creation fees" during taxable year ended June 30, 1986, on
page 213 of our prior opinion should be changed from $169,263 to
$147,951.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011