- 4 - discovered evidence the moving party could not have introduced, by exercise of due diligence, in the prior proceeding. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998). The granting of a motion for reconsideration rests within the discretion of the Court, and taxpayers must show unusual circumstances or substantial error for their motions to be granted. Id. Moreover, reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the result desired by the moving party. Id. at 441-442. In his motions, petitioner asserts: (1) Respondent violated an automatic bankruptcy stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) (1994), when respondent assessed his 1994 tax liability, and as a result respondent did not timely assess such liability; (2) the NFTL was improperly issued; and (3) the NFTL overstated petitioner’s true tax liability. Petitioner’s motions do not introduce any new evidence, show unusual circumstances, or establish a substantial error of law. The motions merely rehash legal arguments already rejected by this Court.3 Nevertheless, we discuss the application of 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(6) to this case in greater detail. 3 As found in Parker v. Commissioner, supra, the assessment of the 1994 liability did not violate the bankruptcy stay, and the NFTL was timely issued and correctly stated petitioner’s tax liability for tax years 1992, 1993, and 1994.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011