Opinion
19089-17
10-01-2021
RUSSELL E. BARRIOS, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Patrick J. Urda Judge.
This case is currently calendared for trial at the Court's Atlanta, Georgia, remote trial session, which is scheduled to begin October 18, 2021. On September 27, 2021, petitioner, Russell Barrios, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dated November 10, 2020. That order granted the Commissioner's motion for leave to file a first amendment to his answer and denied Mr. Barrios's motion to withdraw or modify the deemed admitted admissions pursuant to Rule 90(f). As discussed below, we will deny the motion.
As an initial matter, the motion is untimely. Under Tax Court Rule 161, which applies to both posttrial opinions and interlocutory orders, see Bedrosian v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 152, 156 (2015), a party must file a motion for reconsideration within 30 days after the service of a written opinion or order. Rule 161; Bedrosian, 144 T.C. at 155. Mr. Barrios filed his motion for reconsideration on September 27, 2021, over ten months after the Court, on November 10, 2020, served the order that is the subject of his motion for reconsideration. Mr. Barrios does not explain his lack of compliance with Rule 161, which alone is sufficient reason to deny the motion.
Even if there were no timing issue, Mr. Barrios's motion fails to clear the high bar for reconsideration under Rule 161. "Generally, reconsideration under Rule 161 is intended to correct substantial errors of fact or law and allow the introduction of newly discovered evidence that the moving party could not have introduced, by the exercise of due diligence, in the prior proceeding." Turner v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 306, 307 (2012). The Court has discretion to grant a motion for reconsideration but generally will not do so absent a showing of "unusual circumstances or substantial error." Id.; see also Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998). "Reconsideration is not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving party." Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42.
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Barrios does not direct the Court to any particular aspect of its earlier order that might constitute a substantial error. Nor does he demonstrate any unusual circumstance or establish that an exception from ours norm regarding reconsideration is warranted.
Mr. Barrios instead rehashes the same arguments made in his response to the Commissioner's motion for leave to amend and his motion to withdraw the admissions - contentions that we previously considered and rejected. More specifically, Mr. Barrios seeks to preclude the Commissioner from relying on a deemed admission that he received over $7.5 million in gross receipts from his business in 2011, an admission that was based on a draft 2011 Form 1040 that Mr. Barrios himself provided. The arguments raised now track the arguments made before and rely on the same affidavits. We will not reconsider those arguments "simply because [Mr. Barrios] raised [them] for a second time." Seiffert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-61, at *7.
Mr. Barrios attached the same two affidavits to both his opposition to the Commissioner's motion for leave to amend the answer and to the motion for reconsideration.
As the motion filed by Mr. Barrios is both untimely and fails to satisfy the strictures of Rule 161, we will deny the motion for reconsideration. Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration, filed September 27, 2021, is denied.