Opinion
939-20
04-04-2022
LARRY T. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Patrick J. Urda, Judge
The Court issued its Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case (T.C. Memo. 2022-7) on February 7, 2022. On March 21, 2022, petitioner Larry T. Williams filed a document that we treated as a timely motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161 .
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. We round all monetary amounts to the nearest dollar.
To briefly recap, Mr. Williams challenged the IRS's determination of deficiency of $49,100 in his federal income tax, as well as an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $12,273 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $9,820, for the 2016 tax year. At trial and in his pleadings, Mr. Williams raised a number of arguments that this Court has repeatedly rejected as frivolous. We accordingly sustained the IRS's determination subject to certain concessions that the Commissioner had made. In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Williams repeats and expounds upon the frivolous arguments we have previously rejected.
"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 wide discretion in considering whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, and, as a general matter, we 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).
Mr. Williams does not seek to introduce any newly discovered evidence or bring to light any unusual circumstances applicable to this case. Instead, he dedicates his motion to rehashing arguments we have found frivolous or irrelevant (both in this case and many times in the past). We decline Mr. Williams' invitation to revisit these arguments. To the extent that any of his arguments could be considered to raise slightly new legal theories, "[r]econsideration is not the appropriate forum" to tender them. See Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42. In short, Mr. Williams' motion fails to satisfy the high standard for reconsideration of our opinion, and we will deny it.
We previously warned Mr. Williams that he risks sanctions under section 6673 should he continue to press frivolous or groundless arguments in this Court, and he has continued to maintain such frivolous arguments. We repeat our warning that Mr. Williams faces a sanction under section 6673 of up to $25,000 if he persists in raising frivolous arguments before this Court.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Wiliams' motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161 is denied.