- 3 - Our conclusion is supported by the fact that the Corporation’s role in the Partnership was to secure funds for the Partnership and that the record is barren as to any obligation or effort on the part of the Partnership to secure its own funds. Nor do we find that any of the Partnership’s partners, except the Corporation, had such an obligation. In fact, each of the partners appears to have contributed something unique to the Partnership. In the case of Messrs. Schadeck and Lettunich, for example, the former contributed his rights in the underlying patent, and the latter contributed his legal skills and his labor. The Corporation expected to, and did, generate and contribute funds to the Partnership. [Id.] Reconsideration under Rule 161, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, serves the limited purpose of correcting manifest errors of fact or law, or allows for the introduction of newly discovered evidence that could not have been introduced in the prior proceeding by the exercise of due diligence. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441-442 (1998); Lucky Stores, Inc., & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-70, affd. 153 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 1998); Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-414, affd. without published opinion 116 F.3d 1476 (5th Cir. 1997). The granting of a motion for reconsideration rests within our discretion, and we usually do not exercise our discretion absent a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, supra at 441-442; Lucky Stores, Inc., & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner, supra. Reconsideration is not the appropriate forum for rehashingPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011