Ware v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioners have moved for reconsideration of our prior opinion (T. C. Memo. 1989-165) on the ground that respondent should be precluded from raising on brief the issue of "unrealized receivable" under sec. 751, I.R.C. 1954. Held, the rule against raising an issue on brief is not absolute and, since petitioners have not been prejudiced under the circumstances herein, petitioners' motion is denied.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Tannenwald, Judge:
Petitioners have moved for reconsideration of our prior opinion (T.C. Memo. 1989-165) and to vacate our decision.
Petitioners’ position is simply a reiteration of that taken in their reply brief, i.e., that respondent should be precluded from raising on brief the issue of an “unrealized receivable” of the partnership within the meaning of section 751,1 because it is inconsistent with respondent’s prior position that the amount in question represented a fee earned by petitioner-husband and taxable to him as ordinary income. In so doing, petitioners claim that our…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Estate of Horvath v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
- Seligman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1985
- Lillian Bernstein, of the Estate of Kalman Bernstein, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- Smith v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Graham v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
3Cited by35 opinions
- Sundstrand Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Bradley v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
- R. Timmis Ware and Catherine K. Ware v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Rolfs v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2010
- Zapara v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.