Virginia M. Marten - Page 4




                                        - 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