- 3 -
In the motion for leave and the motion for reconsideration,
petitioners argue that the Court needs to address petitioners’
marital status in order to resolve computational adjustments and
the section 6662 penalties contained in the notices of
deficiencies.3 Petitioners contend they will be harmed absent a
ruling on these issues. Accordingly, even though they seek to
file the motion for reconsideration considerably more than 30
days after our written opinion in Rinehart II was served, they
argue that in the interest of justice we should permit them leave
to file the motion for reconsideration and reconsider our
opinion. Respondent does not object to granting petitioners
leave to file the motion for reconsideration.
We agree that it is in the interest of justice to permit
petitioners to file the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly,
we shall grant the motion for leave, and we shall grant the
motion for reconsideration in order to address the following
issues: (1) The marital status of Mr. Rinehart and petitioner
Jeana L. Yeager (Ms. Yeager)4 for Federal income tax purposes for
1994, 1995 and 1996, and (2) whether petitioners are liable for
penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) related to claiming a
3 Petitioners do not seek reconsideration of any of our
other findings or conclusions in Rinehart II.
4 We use the term “Ms. Yeager” for convenience only. The
use of this term is not a finding regarding petitioners’ marital
status during the years in issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011