Opinion
7964-19
11-18-2024
LANCE C. STANDIFIRD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Travis A. Greaves Judge
Currently before the Court is petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, filed October 18, 2024. On March 14, 2024, we issued our Opinion in this case. See Standifird v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-30. We ordered the parties to submit computations under Rule 155 related to the deficiency. On September 20, 2024, we entered a decision in this case, and the case was closed. Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, requesting that we vacate our decision. We deny petitioner's motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times.
The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 162 lies within the Court's discretion. See Kun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-273, slip op. at 5, aff'd, 157 Fed.Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 162 authorizes a party to file a motion to vacate or revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit. Motions to vacate or revise decision generally are not granted without a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief. See Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1000-01 (1978); Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-204, at *8, aff'd, 775 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2015). Rule 162 is not a vehicle for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving party. See Stoody v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 643, 644 (1977).
In his motion, petitioner alleges that we erred in our redetermination of the additions to tax under sections 6651(f) and 6654 because the additions to tax are imposed based on income that flowed through to petitioner from the partnership. Our decision was not in error. As noted in our Opinion, we have jurisdiction in a partner-level proceeding to determine additions to tax that result from partnership adjustments. See Estate of Simon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-174, at *12 (holding that the Court had jurisdiction in a partner-level proceeding to determine an addition to tax under section 6651(a) because the addition to tax was attributable to the deficiency). The computation of these additions to tax may be considered partnership income determined in the partnership proceeding that is passed through to the taxpayer. Id.; see also Harris v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 121, 127 (1992) (holding that in computing the amount tax owed by a taxpayer, we may consider settled partnership adjustments that have been previously determined), aff'd 16 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 1994). We therefore reject petitioner's argument and deny petitioner's motion.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, filed October 18, 2024, is denied.