- 3 -
petitioner Robert C. McKee was a dealer in real estate whose
sales of undeveloped ranch property parcels would be taxed as
ordinary income; and (2) whether certain losses petitioners
claimed are limited under sections 1366(d), 465, and 469. As a
result of the Appeals Office conference, the parties reached a
settlement. In resolving the dealer in real estate issue,
pursuant to petitioners’ offer, the parties agreed to treat 50
percent of the parcel sales as sales of dealer property, subject
to ordinary income tax, and the other 50 percent as sales giving
rise to capital gains.
Discussion
Reconsideration under Rule 161 is intended to correct
substantial errors of fact or law and allow the introduction of
newly discovered evidence that the moving party could not have
introduced, by the exercise of due diligence, in the prior
proceeding. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441
(1998). This Court has discretion to grant a motion for
reconsideration and will not do so unless the moving party shows
unusual circumstances or substantial error. Id.; see also Vaughn
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986). “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.” Estate of Quick v.
Commissioner, supra at 441-442.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011