- 9 -
(1972)); cf. Ware v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1267 (1989) (holding
that the Commissioner was not precluded from raising for the
first time on brief the applicability of section 751), affd. 906
F.2d 62, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1990). Respondent was no less well
situated than these pro sese petitioners to be aware of the
relevant statutory provisions. Respondent had adequate
opportunity to present pertinent evidence at trial regarding
petitioners’ claim and the defense thereto that he had asserted
even before trial and that constitutes a mainspring of his motion
for reconsideration; i.e., that petitioners failed to make an
adequate written request for the Appeals officer to sell the
stock.6
In his motion for reconsideration, although he complains
that we should have held additional evidentiary hearings on the
application of section 6335(f), respondent has not expressly
requested that we now hold additional evidentiary hearings or
described what additional evidence he might now wish to offer.7
6 We note that in his pretrial memorandum, respondent
indicated that he expected to call various witnesses, including
the Appeals officer, to testify. At trial, however, respondent
called no witnesses and offered into evidence only selective
portions of the administrative record.
7 Similarly, respondent has not expressly requested the
opportunity for additional briefing regarding the application of
sec. 6635(f). In his 16-page memorandum of law in support of
motion for reconsideration of Opinion, respondent has included
extensive legal argument regarding this matter. Petitioners have
filed a response. We conclude that additional briefing would not
be helpful to the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011