- 76 -
decision in Transport Labor I should be vacated or revised,
petitioner incorporates by reference the arguments in
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and advances the
following additional arguments: (1) The Court’s decision in
Transport Labor I did not allow the parties an opportunity to
submit computations under Rule 155 to show the correct amount of
the respective deficiencies for the taxable years at issue;
(2) the Court’s decision failed to reduce the amounts subject to
the section 274(n)(1) limitation pursuant to section 274(e)(3)
(petitioner’s section 274(e)(3) argument); and (3) the Court’s
decision did not reduce the respective deficiencies in
petitioner’s tax for the years at issue by certain amounts of tax
allegedly paid by certain trucking company clients for those
years (petitioner’s tax duplication argument). Respondent
disagrees with petitioner’s position.
A motion to vacate or revise a decision pursuant to Rule 162
is granted at the Court’s discretion. We have rejected
petitioner’s arguments in support of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. We also reject those arguments in support of
petitioner’s motion to vacate. Our discussion of petitioner’s
motion to vacate will address only the additional arguments that
petitioner advances in that motion.
A motion to vacate or revise a decision pursuant to Rule 162
is usually denied in a case where the moving party attempts to
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011