- 3 -
even if the losses claimed were not "phony", they were groundless
and frivolous because courts have sustained criminal convictions
for claims of ordinary loss treatment by persons who were traders
rather than dealers. Petitioner also argues that the Court
applied inconsistent standards in determining that petitioners
were liable for negligence and substantial understatement
additions for 1986 and 1987 and accuracy-related penalties for
1988-92 with respect to the claimed ordinary losses and
unsubstantiated business expense deductions, while holding that
the claimed ordinary losses and expense deductions were not
grossly erroneous for the purpose of sustaining petitioner's
entitlement to innocent spouse treatment.
The granting of a motion for reconsideration is within the
discretion of the Court. Such a motion is generally denied in
the absence of 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); Lucky Stores, Inc.
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-70. Petitioner's motion shows
no unusual circumstances or substantial error and will therefore
be denied. However, for purposes of completeness, we will
address the arguments in petitioner's motion.
1. Petitioner's Contention That Ordinary Loss Treatment of
the Option Transactions Was Grossly Erroneous
Petitioner contends, as she did on brief, that the return
treatment of the option losses as ordinary losses was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011