Opinion
24983-15
06-27-2023
ORDER
Cary Douglas Pugh Judge
The Court issued an Opinion in this case denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment that the three-year period of limitations under section 6501(a) began to run upon his filing of returns with the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue for 2002 and 2003 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, making the 2015 notice of deficiency untimely. Tice v. Commissioner, No. 24983-15, 160 T.C. (Apr. 10, 2023). On May 10, 2023, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 161. On June 15, 2023, respondent filed a response. On June 17, 2023, petitioner filed a reply (after we granted his motion for leave to do so). We will deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C, in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Reconsideration of an opinion or findings of fact under Rule 161 is intended to correct substantial error, either of fact or law, and facilitates the introduction of new evidence the moving party could not have previously introduced with due diligence. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998); see also Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 879 (5th Cir.1995), affg T.C. Memo. 1993-634 ("Reconsideration of proceedings is generally denied in the absence of 'substantial error' or 'unusual circumstances.'" (quoting CWT Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1054, 1057 (1982), affd, 755 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1985))). A motion for 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. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration lies within the discretion of the Court. CWT Farms, 79 T.C. at 1057.
Applying these principles we conclude that reconsideration of our Opinion is not appropriate. In his motion for reconsideration petitioner does not point to substantial error or unusual circumstances. Rather, he contends that we should reconsider our Opinion because "[m]ost of [it] was merely a recital of the requirements of Code section 932 and the history of recent litigation in this area" and it "devote[d] only a few paragraphs" to two issues "actually raised" in petitioner's motion for summary judgment-the "application of Mirror Code section 6501(a)" and the "retroactive application" of Treasury Regulation § 1.932-1(c)(2)(ii) (2008) to the years in issue. In other words, petitioner acknowledges that he previously advanced these arguments in his motion for summary judgment and that we considered them in our Opinion; his objection is that we did not "reach the end result desired by [him]." Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42. This "rehashing of previously rejected legal arguments," id., does not provide sufficient grounds for reconsidering an opinion. Because petitioner has not shown that reconsideration would correct substantial error, we will deny his Rule 161 motion.
Even if we were to rule otherwise and once again considered petitioner's arguments, we would repeat our analysis in our Opinion. In it we discussed the mirror code, that "[s]ection 932 is not part of [it] and thus is not part of the [U.S. Virgin Island (USVI)] territorial tax system," and that the purpose of section 932, which provides the filing requirements for taxpayers with USVI-source income, "is to help ensure a unified tax split between the USVI and the U.S. Treasury for those U.S. citizens who have USVI-source income." Tice, 160 T.C. slip. op. at 5 & n.3. We also squarely addressed petitioner's argument that "Treasury violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by giving taxpayers the option to apply the otherwise prospectively effective rule in Treasury Regulation § 1.932-1(c)(2) for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2006, but not for the years in issue." Id. at 11-13. Petitioner objects that we did not devote enough paragraphs to these issues but his objection to our brevity does not undermine the correctness of our conclusions.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, filed May 10, 2023, is denied.