Menu
Tax Notes logo

Tax Court Won’t Reconsider Eaton Transfer Pricing Penalty Decision

JAN. 7, 2020

Eaton Corp. et al. v. Commissioner

DATED JAN. 7, 2020
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    Eaton Corp. et al. v. Commissioner
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    No. 5576-12
  • Judge
    Kerrigan, Kathleen
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    2020-822
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2020 TNTI 6-17
    2020 TNTG 6-21
    2020 TNTF 6-29

Eaton Corp. et al. v. Commissioner

EATON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,
Petitioner(s),
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

ORDER

In the Court's Opinion, Eaton Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. __, __ (October 28, 2019)1,we held petitioner is not liable for penalties pursuant to section 6662(a), (b)(3), (e), and (h) for tax years 2005 and 20062. The parties have not yet submitted computations pursuant to Rule 155. On November 27, 2019, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161. On December 23, 2019, petitioner filed an opposition to respondent's motion.

The decision to grant a motion to reconsider lies within the discretion of the Court. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998). Reconsideration is intended to correct substantial errors of fact or law and allow the introduction of newly discovered evidence that the moving party could not have introduced by the exercise of due diligence in the prior proceeding. Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185, 185 (2008).

In our prior Opinion, Eaton Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. at __, we concluded that there were no net section 482 transfer price adjustments. Respondent contends in his motion to reconsider that the Court erred in concluding there were no section 482 adjustments. Respondent's motion raises previously unsuccessful arguments which were addressed in our Opinion and those arguments do not merit reconsideration.

Because respondent has failed to establish grounds as to why this Court should reconsider its Opinion, it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161, filed November 27, 2019, is denied.

(Signed) Kathleen Kerrigan
Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.
January 7, 2020

FOOTNOTES

1This Opinion supplements Eaton Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-147.

2All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

END FOOTNOTES

DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    Eaton Corp. et al. v. Commissioner
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    No. 5576-12
  • Judge
    Kerrigan, Kathleen
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    2020-822
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2020 TNTI 6-17
    2020 TNTG 6-21
    2020 TNTF 6-29
Copy RID