- 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 rehashing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011