DocketNumber: Tax Ct. Dkt. No. 20851-95
Citation Numbers: 1998 T.C. Memo. 122, 75 T.C.M. 2072, 1998 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 123
Judges: GERBER
Filed Date: 3/30/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*123 Decision will be entered in accordance with respondent's computation.
GARY B. AND KATHLEEN MITCHELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent /*/
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION
GERBER, JUDGE: As set forth in a November 3, 1997, opinion,
The difference in the parties' computations arises from petitioners' contention that the record does not expressly show that petitioners had included the $112,470 in their attempt to defer gain under
(c) Limit on Argument: Any argument under this Rule will be confined strictly to consideration of the correct computation of the deficiency, liability, or overpayment resulting from the findings and conclusions made by the Court, and no argument will be heard upon or consideration given to the issues or matters disposed of by the Court's findings and conclusions or to any new issues. This Rule is not to be regarded as affording an opportunity for retrial or reconsideration.
Issues that have been litigated at the trial of a case may not be relitigated in connection with the entry of decision under
The pleadings, motions, other pretrial documents, and trial record are without reference to the question of whether petitioners included the renovations in their computation of the cost of their new residence on their tax return. This question did not arise until petitioners first mentioned it in their posttrial reply brief and again in their
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered in accordance with respondent's computation.
/*/. This opinion supplements a previously released opinion:
1. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.↩
2. We note that petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion under Rule 161, either within or without the 30-day limit of that Rule.↩