- 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