- 15 -
1968); Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-105. However,
the disposition of a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate
or revise a decision 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.
In the present case, the Court thoroughly considered the
arguments contained in petitioners' supporting Memorandum of
Points and Authorities as reflected in the detailed analysis set
forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion in Richards I.
Specifically, based upon petitioners' clear reliance on Scar v.
Commissioner, supra, the Court analyzed the controlling case law,
applied the law to the relevant facts, and concluded that the
notice of deficiency issued to petitioners is valid. Implicit in
the Court's analysis is the determination that petitioners failed
to allege sufficient facts to properly question our jurisdiction
to enter the stipulated decision in this case. Brannon's of
Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners also complain that they were not timely served
with respondent's Response to their motion for leave, and that
the Court denied their motion for leave without first allowing
them to reply thereto. Any prejudice to petitioners occasioned
by the delay in service of respondent's Response, which was made
in accordance with Rule 21(b), has been obviated by our
consideration of petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011