- 10 -
Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492 (1987); Bouterie v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-510, revd. and remanded 36 F.3d
1361 (5th Cir. 1994).
B. The Interests of Justice
In the alternative to their argument that their Motion for
Litigation Costs is separately reviewable, petitioners argue that
we should grant their Motion for Leave. In this regard,
petitioners argue that "the inadvertent actions of petitioners'
counsel should be viewed in light of the lack of specific
guidance in the Tax Court Rules as to when a party should move
for litigation costs." Therefore, according to petitioners,
justice would be served by granting their Motion for Leave. We
disagree with both the premise and the conclusion of petitioners'
argument.
Whether to grant or deny a motion for leave is a matter that
lies within the sound discretion of the Court. Heim v.
Commissioner, 872 F.2d 245, 246 (8th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo.
1987-1; Estate of Egger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1079, 1083
(1989). In deciding what action to take,
We are guided primarily by whether it would be in the
interest of justice to vacate the prior decision. But,
we also recognize that litigation must end at sometime.
[Estate of Egger v. Commissioner, supra; citation
omitted.]
See also Commissioner v. Estate of Long, 304 F.2d 136, 144 (9th
Cir. 1962).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011