Opinion
16399-19
05-01-2023
SOLOMON SAMUEL NEUHARDT, II, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Patrick J. Urda, Judge
On February 10, 2022, the Court entered a decision in this case that was stipulated and signed by both parties. Neither party filed a notice of appeal or a timely motion to vacate or revise that decision, and it accordingly became final on May 11, 2022, 90 days after it was entered. See I.R.C. §§ 7459(c), 7481(a)(1).
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.), 26 U.S.C., in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On April 10, 2023, petitioner, Solomon Samuel Neuhardt II, filed a motion for reconsideration of order. Because Mr. Neuhardt's motion is in substance more akin to a motion to vacate or revise decision pursuant to Rule 162, we will recharacterize it as such.
Rule 162 provides that, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, any motion to vacate or revise decision must be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered. Mr. Neuhardt did not file his motion within 30 days after the decision in this case was entered, and his motion is therefore untimely. See Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-212, at *11.
Rule 161 similarly provides that, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, any motion for reconsideration of an opinion or findings of fact must be filed within 30 days after a written opinion has been served.
"[A]s a general rule, once a decision has become final, the Tax Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate." United States v. Billingsly, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Byers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-76, at *5. We have recognized limited exceptions to this general rule where (1) there has been fraud on the Court, (2) the Court never acquired jurisdiction, and (3) a clerical error in the decision document was not discovered until the decision had become final. See, e.g., Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 419-20 (2014); Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 270 (2004). In his motion to vacate, Mr. Neuhardt seeks to raise a new argument with respect to innocent spouse relief, which plainly does not fit within any of the narrow exceptions to the rule of finality. We accordingly have no jurisdiction to consider his motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Mr. Neuhardt's motion for reconsideration of order is recharacterized as Mr. Neuhardt's motion to vacate or revise decision pursuant to Rule 162. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Neuhardt's motion to vacate or revise decision pursuant to Rule 162 is denied.