From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acuff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Jul 3, 2023
No. 6788-22S (U.S.T.C. Jul. 3, 2023)

Opinion

6788-22S

07-03-2023

RONALD DEWEY ACUFF & SUE LEE ACUFF, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER

Adam B. Landy, Special Trial Judge

On February 9, 2023, the Court entered a decision in this case that was stipulated to and signed by both parties. Neither party filed a timely motion to vacate or revise that decision, and it became final on May 10, 2023, 90 days after it was entered. See I.R.C. §§ 7459(c), 7481(b). This case was called from the calendar for the standalone remote trial session on May 22, 2023. The Acuffs and counsel for the Commissioner appeared and were heard. During the proceeding, the Acuffs orally moved the Court to vacate the decision, pursuant to Rule 162.

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.

By Order served May 26, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to file a written report stating the legal basis for the Court granting the Acuffs' motion after the decision had been entered by the Court for more than 90 days. On June 29, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report concluding that there is no legal basis for the Court to grant the Acuffs' motion.

Rule 162 provides that, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, any motion to vacate or revise a decision must be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered. The Acuffs did not file their motion within 30 days after the decision, in this case, was entered, and their motion is untimely. See Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-212, at *11.

"[A]s a general rule, once a decision has become final, the Tax Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate." Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000); 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. Davenport Recycling Associates, 220 F.3d at 1259; see also Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 419-20 (2014); Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 270 (2004). None of these exceptions exist in this case, and hence, we will deny the Acuffs' motion.

Upon due consideration of the Acuffs' motion, the parties' joint status report, filed June 29, 2023, and for cause, it is

ORDERED that the Acuffs' above-referenced motion is denied.


Summaries of

Acuff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Jul 3, 2023
No. 6788-22S (U.S.T.C. Jul. 3, 2023)
Case details for

Acuff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:RONALD DEWEY ACUFF & SUE LEE ACUFF, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Jul 3, 2023

Citations

No. 6788-22S (U.S.T.C. Jul. 3, 2023)