Opinion
17379-19 17380-19 17381-19 17382-19
03-18-2022
GREEN VALLEY INVESTORS, LLC, BOBBY A. BRANCH, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, ET. AL., Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Christian N. Weiler Judge
On January 21, 2022, petitioners filed unopposed Motions for Leave to File Out of Time Motions for Reconsideration of Order in each of the above-docketed consolidated cases. On this same date, petitioners also lodged their Motions for Reconsideration of Order (collectively "Motions for Reconsideration") with their respective Motions for Leave, seeking reconsideration of the Court's interlocutory order served on May 27, 2021, granting respondent's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the applicability of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) in each of the above-docketed consolidated cases.
Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Vista Hill Investments, LLC, Bobby A. Branch, Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 17380-19; Big Hill Partners, LLC, Bobby A. Branch, Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 17381-19; Tick Creek Holdings, LLC, Bobby A. Branch, Tax Matters Partner, docket No.17382-19.
By order served on January 28, 2022, the Court granted petitioners' Motions for Leave and we ordered respondent to file on before February 25, 2022, a response to petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration, in each of these consolidated cases. On February 25, 2022, respondent filed objections to petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration in these consolidated matters, along with a memorandum of law in support of his objections.
On December 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that "the Commissioner's interpretation of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii), to disallow the subtraction of the value of post-donation improvements . . . is arbitrary and capricious and therefore, invalid under the APA's procedural requirements." Hewitt v. Commissioner, 21 F.4th 1336, 1353 (11th Cir. 12/29/2021), rev'g and remanding T.C. Memo. 2020-89. Pursuant to Rule 161, and in light of the Hewitt decision by the Eleventh Circuit, petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration request that this Court reconsiders its order served on May 27, 2021, and deny respondent's Motion for partial Summary Judgment to the extent it relied on Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii).
In his objections, respondent cites to Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971) and notes how Hewitt is not controlling precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to which these cases are appealable. Respondent then argues that since the Hewitt decision does not constitute an intervening change of controlling law in the Fourth Circuit, the Court should deny petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration on this basis alone.
Under Rule 161, reconsideration is intended to correct substantial error, either of fact or law, and also facilitates the introduction of new evidence the moving party could not have previously introduced with due diligence. See, e.g., Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998). However, reconsideration is not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments, nor is it for tendering new legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving party. Id. at 441-442. Deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration lies within the discretion of the Court. See CWT Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1054, 1057 (1982).
Since appeal of this case would presumably be to the Fourth Circuit and not the Eleventh Circuit, it remains inappropriate to grant petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration and reconsider the same arguments previously made in opposition to respondent's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
See petitioners' July 2, 2019, objection to respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Considering the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration filed on January 28, 2022, in each of these consolidated matters, are denied. It is further
ORDERED that a telephone status conference with the Court and the parties herein is set for April 11, 2022, at 11:30a.m. (EST) to discuss petitioners' motion for protective order, the parties recent status reports, and trial preparation of these matters. The Court will separately furnish counsel for the parties dial-in information for the telephone status conference, and if counsel for the parties are unavailable at this scheduled time, counsel is to notify Chambers as soon as possible.