Opinion
10853-21
10-04-2022
WALLACE E. YOPP & BRANDITH B. YOPP, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
CARY DOUGLAS PUGH JUDGE
This case was set for trial at the Court's Phoenix, Arizona, Trial Calendar on October 3, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Court received a stipulated decision document signed on that date by petitioners and counsel for respondent. We entered the decision on October, 3, 2022. At the trial session, Mr. Yopp appeared and stated that he wished to withdraw the decision because he had not understood that the amount shown on the decision as the agreed deficiency amount did not include interest. We characterized his request as an oral motion to vacate under Rule 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Counsel for respondent objects to the motion. Mr. Yopp also stated that he stood by his signature; we thanked him for his candor and took his motion under advisement.
As we advised at the time, the bar for vacating a decision pursuant to Rule 162 is high. See, e.g., Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1971) (requiring a showing of fraud on the court, and noting criticism of cases in other circuits that considered mutual mistake or stipulation to reopen). Mr. Yopp's sincere statement does not rise to the level required for us to vacate the decision. It is therefore
ORDERED that petitioners' oral motion to vacate is denied.