- 29 -
Discussion
The granting of a motion for reconsideration rests within
the discretion of the Court. Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner,
928 F.2d 751, 759 (6th Cir. 1991), affg. in part and remanding in
part T.C. Memo. 1988-286; Klarkowski v. Commissioner, 385 F.2d
398, 401 (7th Cir. 1967), affg. T.C. Memo. 1965-328. A motion
for reconsideration will be denied unless unusual circumstances
or substantial error is shown. Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner,
supra at 759; Alexander v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 467, 469 (1990),
affd. without published opinion sub nom. Stell v. Commissioner,
999 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1993); Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
164, 167 (1986).
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration fails to address the
Court’s holdings in Herbst I that the Court does not have juris-
diction over the cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-0011
11We note that the respective responses to the Court’s
December 3, 2001 Show Cause Orders in the cases at docket Nos.
9999-00 and 10000-00 asserted that “Petitioner does not believe
that this Court has jurisdiction.”
We further note that attached as an exhibit to the Trust’s
motion to vacate in the case at docket No. 9999-00 is, inter
alia, an affidavit of Mr. Herbst (Mr. Herbst’s affidavit),
allegedly notarized by Mr. Binge. Mr. Herbst’s affidavit states:
“At the time of the filing of the Petition, and since the incep-
tion of the Trust in the above-captioned matter, I was the
Trustee for the Petitioner.” Attached to Mr. Herbst’s affidavit
are, according to that affidavit, “true and accurate copies of
the originals” of the trust documents pertaining to Herbst
Management Trust, which Mr. Herbst alleges in Mr. Herbst’s
affidavit “were maintained in my possession until April, 2002."
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011