- 4 -
constituted alimony includable in Ms. Marten’s income pursuant to
section 71(a)(1), prior to amendment by the Deficit Reduction Act
of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 422(a), 98 Stat. 494, 795
(pre-DEFRA section 71).
On November 5, 1999, Ms. Marten filed a motion for
reconsideration of our opinion. On April 20, 2000, we granted
the motion for reconsideration to consider whether we had erred
in applying pre-DEFRA section 71 as opposed to section 71, after
amendment by DEFRA (post-DEFRA section 71). We held that we were
correct in applying pre-DEFRA section 71 and upheld our decision
in Marten I.
On May 19, 2000, Ms. Marten filed a motion for further
reconsideration. In the motion for further reconsideration, Ms.
Marten now argues that if pre-DEFRA section 71 applies, she
should still prevail based on our holding in Wright v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 377 (1974), affd. 543 F.2d 593 (7th Cir.
1976). Ms. Marten also reiterates her prior argument that Mr.
Lane should be judicially estopped from arguing that the premium
payments were not for Niklas’ support. On June 7, 2000, Mr. Lane
and respondent filed responses thereto.
Reconsideration under Rule 161 permits us to correct
manifest errors of law or fact, or to allow newly discovered
evidence to be introduced that could not have been introduced
before the filing of an opinion, even if the moving party had
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011