- 4 - Circuit denied a request for a rehearing en banc in El Charro I.2 After the time for filing a petition for certiorari had expired, respondent moved for entry of decision. In response to that motion, petitioner contended that the affirmed opinion in El Charro I failed to address the legal issue presented in this case and El Charro I. We were persuaded to delay ruling on respondent’s motion because the same issues concerning the other participants in the earlier consolidated cases had been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by the participants other than petitioner. The Court of Appeals, on April 14, 1998, issued its opinion, reversing and remanding the opinion issued by this Court as it affected the two controlling case participants other than petitioner herein. At this juncture, alternative possibilities for resolution have been exhausted, and it is not appropriate to delay further action on respondent's motion. Discussion The operative language of the agreement between petitioner and respondent limits the resolution of the adjustments in this case to the same result obtained by petitioner as a litigant in El Charro I if it was decided that the income forecast method was 2 El Charro TV Rental, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. 1996), rehearing denied 85 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 1996), affg. without published opinion ABC Rentals of San Antonio, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-601.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011