Opinion
11109-18 11153-18
07-17-2024
MICHAEL C. GIAMBRONE, ET AL., Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Patrick J. Urda Judge
This Court issued a Memorandum Opinion (T.C. Memo. 2024-47) in these cases on April 18, 2024. On June 17, 2024, petitioners Michael, Michele, and William Giambrone (the Giambrones) filed a motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161. [Doc. 109.] We will deny this motion.
Reconsideration under Rule 161 is intended to correct substantial error, either fact or law, and facilitates the introduction of new evidence the moving party could not have previously introduced with due diligence. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998). The decision of "whether to grant a motion for reconsideration lies within the discretion of the Court." Id.
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The term "Doc." refers to the documents as numbered by the Clerk of this Court in Docket No. 11109-18, using .pdf pagination.
In their motion, the Giambrones recapitulate a variety of arguments we considered and addressed in our Memorandum Opinion. Specifically, they argue that (1) the definition of "property" in Illinois includes the right to control an entity separate from the corresponding stock itself, (2) Mr. Farkas intended to deceive the Giambrones, (3) the Giambrones had a reasonable likelihood of recovery until William Giambrone assigned his accounts to the FDIC in 2012, (4) the Giambrones were victims of Mr. Farkas' scheme, and (5) the Giambrones reasonably relied on their accountant in preparing their returns. [Doc. 109 at 5-8.]
A motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments. Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42. We will not reconsider these arguments "simply because [the Giambrones] raised [them] for a second time." Seiffert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-61, at *7. To the contrary, the moving party must show unusual circumstances or substantial error for such a motion to be granted. Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441; Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000); CWT Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1054, 1057 (1982), aff'd, 755 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1985). In our Memorandum Opinion, we reviewed and rejected each and every one of the arguments that the Giambrones have raised in their reconsideration motion. Persistence, while often admirable, is not grounds for reconsideration, and we will accordingly deny the motion. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Giambrones' motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161, filed June 17, 2024, is denied.