J. J. Powell, Inc. v. United States, 13-353

J.J. Powell, Inc. sued and the United States asserted a counterclaim including "failure to pay tax" penalties for specific tax quarters; the parties litigated liability via cross-motions for summary judgment.
The court issued an Opinion on the merits (Feb. 4, 2016) deciding the parties’ tax liabilities and a Clarification Order (Nov. 14, 2016) addressing the effect of that Opinion on the government’s penalty claims.
Plaintiff did not challenge the legitimacy of the assessed penalties in its summary judgment briefing; it instead raised objections only after the Opinion, via motions filed Sept. 15 and Nov. 28, 2016.
Plaintiff’s Nov. 28, 2016 filing was treated as a motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59 seeking modification of the prior rulings to invalidate penalties.
The court applied the RCFC 59 standard (intervening law, newly discovered evidence, or prevention of manifest injustice) and related Federal Circuit/Federal Claims precedent for extraordinary-relief motions.
The court denied reconsideration and ordered the parties to file a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (with proposed draft order) by February 10, 2017; it noted the stipulation may preserve plaintiff’s appellate rights but refused further reconsideration requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should reconsider/modify its summary‑judgment rulings to invalidate failure‑to‑pay penalties	Powell argued penalties are illegitimate and asked the court to modify/clarify its prior rulings to remove those penalties	Government relied on its certified assessments, the counterclaim, and applicable IRC provisions; argued penalties were properly before the court and adjudicated on summary judgment	Denied — RCFC 59 reconsideration denied because plaintiff failed to raise the argument at summary judgment and did not show intervening law, new evidence, or manifest injustice
Whether the parties can compute the amount due on the counterclaim despite plaintiff’s disagreement with penalties	Powell asserted computation was impossible absent invalidating the penalties	Government pointed to certified assessments, counterclaim language, and statutory provisions as sufficient to compute judgment amount	Held — computation is feasible; parties must file a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and attach proposed draft order

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (reconsideration lies largely within trial court discretion)
Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (motions for reconsideration require extraordinary circumstances)
Four Rivers Invs., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 662 (2007) (RCFC 59 not for arguments that could have been raised earlier)
Griswold v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 458 (2004) (enumerating bases for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, manifest injustice)