Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
               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; see Con-               
          cordia Coll. Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 999 F.2d 326, 330 (8th              
          Cir. 1993).  A motion for reconsideration will be denied unless             
          unusual circumstances or substantial error is shown.  Estate of             
          Quirk v. Commissioner, supra; 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).                                      
               With respect to petitioner’s argument that the Court incor-            
          rectly concluded that respondent impeached the testimony of Mr.             
          Ankerfelt, petitioner asserts:                                              
                    The Opinion incorrectly concluded that Gary                       
               Ankerfelt’s credibility was impeached because the                      
               affidavit he submitted in a workers’ compensation case                 
               involving Hix Trucking, a TLC customer, was contrary to                
               his testimony at trial.  A witness may be impeached                    
               only by a prior inconsistent statement.  Here, however,                
               Mr. Ankerfelt made no prior inconsistent statement; his                
               testimony was consistent with his prior statement.                     
               * * * In any event, Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony was                      
               credible; his testimony on every point was corroborated                
               by other witnesses.                                                    
          On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s argument.                   
               At the trial in this case, Mr. Ankerfelt testified with                
          respect to TLC’s role in hiring, firing, and assigning projects             

Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011