Durham Farms v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Durham Farms, # 1, and a number of other partnerships formed by Walter J. Hoyt, III (hereafter collectively Durham Farms), appeal, in part, the tax court’s judgment against them as well as its refusal to reopen. We affirm.(1) Principally, Durham Farms complains about the tax court’s denial of a motion to reopen the case for the purpose of receiving additional evidence and considering further issues after it had issued its judgment. See Tax Ct. R. 161. The tax court construes that rule to permit reopening only when there is a showing of “unusual circumstances or substantial error.”…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pacific Insurance Company v. American National Fire Insurance Company, Rail Link, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Grodt & McKay Realty, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Aybar v. Crispin-ReyesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Nor-Cal Adjusters, AKA Nor-Cal Insurance Adjusters, Formerly Hobson Adjusters, a Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Keller v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Glenn A. Mortensen v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Van Scoten v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Keller v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- CMA Consol., Inc. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.