Opinion
6791-20
06-13-2022
JEFFREY D. HOYAL & LORI D. HOYAL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch Judge
The Hoyals filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 7, 2022. That motion alleged that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the period of limitations had lapsed, thus barring any assessment by the Commissioner. The Commissioner conceded that the notice of deficiency was issued beyond the general section 6501(a) three-year period of limitations. But the Commissioner further alleged that there are genuine disputes as to material facts underlying the applicability of the unlimited period of limitations that applies in the case of a false or fraudulent return. See § 6501(c)(1). Finding that genuine disputes as to material facts existed, the Court denied the Hoyals' motion by Order dated May 4, 2022.
On June 10, 2022, 37 days after the Court denied their motion, the Hoyals filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 161. In addition to being untimely (such a motion is due within 30 days), the Hoyals' motion for reconsideration merely rehashes arguments they presented in their initial motion. "A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate mechanism by which to reassert previously unsuccessful arguments or to present new legal theories." Bedrosian v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 152, 156 (2015), aff'd, 940 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 filed June 10, 2022, is denied.