1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637 | Tax Ct. | 1990
1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" label="1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" no-link"="" number="1" pagescheme="<span class=">1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637">*637
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION
The controversy before us arises out of petitioner's objection to respondent's computation filed1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" label="1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" no-link"="" number="2" pagescheme="<span class=">1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637">*638 pursuant to
Petitioner has framed his contention in the form of an objection to respondent's proposed
Because petitioner's objection purports to raise a legal issue, in the exercise of our discretion, we may treat the objection as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 161.
Petitioner, however, could have presented his argument in a timely motion for reconsideration. 4 Although the law upon which petitioner relies was not in existence when the briefs in the instant case were filed, it was enacted some four months prior to the issuance of our prior Opinion. Petitioner, therefore, had ample opportunity to present his argument to the Court in a timely manner. Moreover, it is our policy to try all issues raised in a case in one proceeding in order to avoid piecemeal and protracted litigation. Our examination of petitioner's objection1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" label="1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" no-link"="" number="5" pagescheme="<span class=">1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637">*641 reveals neither substantial error nor unusual circumstances, and we therefore decline to reopen the instant case for the purpose of considering such objection.
Petitioner's contention with respect to the
It is petitioner's view, however, that OBRA '89 effectuated a repeal of the provision of the 1986 law which set the 25 percent rate used to calculate the
We find petitioner's contention to be specious. OBRA '86 repealed the provisions of TEFRA with respect to returns due prior to OBRA '86's enactment because Congress provided that the 25 percent rate imposed by OBRA '86 would apply to assessments made after October 21, 1986, even where such assessments relate to returns due prior to such date, provided such returns were due after December 31, 1982. See
As noted above, the relevant provision of OBRA '89 applies only to returns due after 1989. There is no indication that Congress intended, or even1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" label="1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637" no-link"="" number="8" pagescheme="<span class=">1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 637">*644 contemplated, that section 7721 of OBRA '89 could have any effect with respect to the amount of the substantial understatement addition calculated for returns, such as those involved in the instant case, which were due prior to such effective date. Congress explicitly provided the contrary. The provisions of section 7721 of OBRA '89, therefore, do not affect the validity of assessments of the
Accordingly, the substantial understatement addition provided by
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise noted, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the years in issue.↩
2. Petitioner has no other objection to the computations filed by respondent pursuant to
Rule 155↩ .3. See also
, revd. on other groundsLandreth v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1986-242859 F.2d 643">859 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1988) (treating parties' submissions regarding proposedRule 155↩ computations as joint motions to reopen the record and receive new evidence).4. We note that respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of our prior Opinion. That motion was decided in our Supplemental Memorandum Opinion issued on June 27, 1990,
T.C. Memo. 1990-327↩ .5. We note that while former
section 6661 ↩ has been repealed, the substantial understatement addition has been retained and recodified at section 6662(b)(2), with the rate reduced to 20 percent. Sec. 7721(a), Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2395.