Anschutz Company and Subsidiaries - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               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 whether 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.                                             
               In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleges that             
          “the Court failed to analyze the application of the ‘directly               
          benefits’ test, as required by the section 263A regulations.”               
          Respondent further argues:                                                  
               Section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(i) implements the section 263A                  
               requirement that a taxpayer must allocate the costs of                 
               producing an asset to that asset.  Section 1.263A-                     
               1(e)(3)(i) of the regulations provides:  “Indirect                     
               costs are properly allocable to property produced or                   
               property acquired for resale when the costs directly                   
               benefit or are incurred by reason of the performance of                
               production or resale activities.”  (Emphasis added.)                   
               The test in section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(i) is disjunctive:                  
               Qwest must allocate Common Indirect Costs to its                       
               section 263A retained assets if those costs meet either                
               prong of the test.  The Court’s opinion is based on the                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011