- 77 -
reopen a case for the purpose of presenting theories or grounds,
and evidence in support thereof, that could have been advanced
and supported at the trial in that case.51 See Concordia Coll.
Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 999 F.2d 326, 330 (8th Cir. 1993);
Chiquita Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 148 F.2d 306, 310 (9th Cir.
1945), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Jan. 5,
1943; Standard Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner, 141 F.2d
195, 198-199 (6th Cir. 1944), affg. 47 B.T.A. 295 (1942).
Generally, new issues may not be raised in a Rule 155
computation. Harris v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 121, 123 (1992),
affd. 16 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 1994). “Issues considered in a Rule
155 proceeding are limited to ‘purely mathematically generated
computational items’.” Id. at 124.
In support of petitioner’s argument that the Court should
vacate its decision in Transport Labor I because the Court did
not allow the parties an opportunity to submit computations under
Rule 155 to show the correct amount of the deficiency for each of
the taxable years at issue, petitioner asserts that the parties
stipulated that a Rule 155 computation was necessary in the
instant case. Petitioner further asserts:
The Court’s Rule 155 contemplates two phases of a
deficiency case: the first phase in which the
petitioner has the burden of proving that the
Commissioner’s determination is invalid; and the second
phase for the purpose of computing the amount of the
51Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-403.
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011