Edward H. and Anne G. Harrell - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Bailly v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 949, 951 (1983).  Reconsideration           
          is not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected              
          legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the end            
          result desired by the moving party.  See Estate of Quick v.                 
          Commissioner, supra at 441-442; Stoody v. Commissioner, 67 T.C.             
          643, 644 (1977).                                                            
               Respondent’s main contention in support of his motion for              
          reconsideration is that this Court was ambiguous in Harrell v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-271, as to whether the issuance of            
          the Notice of Determination, without awaiting the Supreme Court’s           
          opinion in Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43 (2002), was an               
          abuse of discretion.  For the sake of clarity, we deem it                   
          necessary to discuss our rationale in greater detail than we did            
          previously.                                                                 
               As of January 22, 2002, the date of the Notice of                      
          Determination upon which this case is based, the Supreme Court              
          had not as yet decided Young, which had been argued on January 9,           
          2002, but was not decided until March 4, 2002.  In this case, the           
          Supreme Court held that the 3-year lookback period in bankruptcy            
          cases is automatically tolled during the pendency of an earlier             
          proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code.                                       
               In Harrell v. Commissioner, supra, we stated that we were              
          “reluctant to label respondent’s issuance of the Notice of                  
          Determination an abuse of discretion based upon a somewhat                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011