- 5 -
exercised due diligence. See Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal &
Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Traum v.
Commissioner, 237 F.2d 277, 281 (7th Cir. 1956), affg. T.C. Memo.
1955-127. The Court will not grant a motion to reconsider unless
the party seeking reconsideration shows unusual circumstances or
substantial error. See Alexander v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 467,
469 (1990); Estate of Halas v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 570, 574
(1990); Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986);
Estate of Bailly v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 949, 951 (1983); Haft
Trust v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 145, 147 (1974), affd. on this
issue 510 F.2d 43, 45 n.1 (1st Cir. 1975).
From a review of the record and legal authority, we are
still convinced that our opinion in Marten I was decided
correctly. For sake of completeness, however, we address our
decision in Wright v. Commissioner, supra, and distinguish it.
Further, we address Ms. Marten’s judicial estoppel argument and
conclude that this is not a proper case for the application of
the doctrine.
Pre-DEFRA section 71 includes in the gross income of a
divorced wife (1) periodic payments (2) received by her (3) in
discharge of the husband’s legal obligation based on the martial
or family relationship (4) incurred under a divorce decree or
settlement agreement incident to such decree. See Brodersen v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 412, 415-416 (1971). In Marten I, we held
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011