Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara - Page 9

                                        - 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