Opinion
19884-18
07-05-2024
MARK L.BARNES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro, Judge.
Now before the Court is a Motion for Relief from Judgment/Order filed by petitioner Mark L. Barnes on May 31, 2024. For the reasons below, we will deny the Motion.
Background
On October 9, 2018, Mr. Barnes filed a Petition to commence this case. At the time, his address was in Michigan. On April 15, 2019, Mr. Barnes filed an Amended Petition challenging, in relevant part, the Commissioner's determinations set forth in a notice of deficiency for Mr. Barnes's 2016 tax year. Mr. Barnes also alleged in the Petition that the 2013 and 2014 tax years were in dispute, but by Order served September 9, 2019, the Court dismissed those years for lack of jurisdiction.
On March 2, 2020, the case was called from the calendar during a trial session of the Court in Detroit, Michigan. Counsel appeared on behalf of the Commissioner, and Christopher L. Bourell with the Toledo Tax Controversy Clinic appeared on behalf of Mr. Barnes. During the calendar call, the Commissioner's counsel advised the Court that the parties had reached a basis for settlement. Specifically, counsel stated that "we were able to speak before the calendar today, and we're all in agreement on the terms." Counsel requested 30 days to file a stipulated decision document with the Court. Counsel read the basis for settlement into the record.
On March 25, 2020, the parties filed a Proposed Stipulated Decision (Doc. 24). Later that same day, the Court entered and served the Stipulated Decision, and the case was closed. The Stipulated Decision became final in June of 2020.
On May 31, 2024, more than four years after the Court entered the decision, the Court received from Mr. Barnes a Motion for Relief from Judgment/Order. In the Motion, Mr. Barnes moves the Court "for Relief From Judgment/Order pursuant to the authority of Federal R. of Civ Proc 60(a) [and] (b)(3) . . . ." (Cleaned up.) Specifically, the Motion alleges misrepresentation with respect to the terms of the Stipulated Decision agreed to by the parties and "moves this [C]ourt for a review of [m]isrepresentation with consideration to hold another hearing or a ex parte Order to correct this error."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that "[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party."
In support of his Motion, Mr. Barnes states that he received an "updated certified letter [showing an] amount owed for the tax year of 2019," and that the letter constitutes "newly discovered evidence of misrepresentation in connection with the credits that the Attorney gave away." Mr. Barnes attaches to the Motion a Notice CP504 from the IRS showing an amount owed to the IRS in connection with Mr. Barnes's 2019 tax year.
Discussion
Tax Court Rule 162 addresses the circumstances in which a party may file a motion to vacate or revise a decision. 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. A party that wishes to file a motion to vacate outside the 30-day period must file a motion for leave to file a proposed motion. See Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 111-12 (2006). The granting of a motion for leave "lies within the sound discretion of the Court." Id. at 112. In determining whether to grant a motion for leave, we may consider the substantive merits of the proposed motion to vacate. See Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1002 (1978). Mr. Barnes did not file a proper motion for leave along with his Motion, and we could reject his Motion on that basis alone. Nevertheless, we will consider the merits of the Motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Generally, an un-appealed decision of our Court becomes final 91 days after it is entered in a case. See I.R.C. § 7481(a)(1) (generally a Tax Court decision becomes final when the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal has expired); I.R.C. § 7483 (providing that a notice of appeal may be filed "within 90 days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered"). Once a decision of our Court becomes final, we generally lack jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate the decision. See Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d 618, 621-23 (6th Cir. 1995); Stewart, 127 T.C. at 112; see also Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1998-347; Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081,1084 (9th Cir. 1989). Our Court has recognized hmited exceptions to this rule where (1) there has been fraud on the Court, (2) the Court never acquired jurisdiction to make a decision in the first place, or (3) a clerical error in the decision document was not discovered until the decision had become final. See Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 419- 20 (2014).
Mr. Barnes has not demonstrated that we have jurisdiction to vacate the Stipulated Decision we entered in this case. The Stipulated Decision we entered became final long ago, and Mr. Barnes's Motion does not demonstrate that one of the limited exceptions we have applied to vacate final decisions applies.
Even if we could grant relief from a final decision on account of a misrepresentation made to Mr. Barnes by either the Commissioner's counsel or his own, Mr. Barnes has not demonstrated any misrepresentation with respect to the year involved in the case. The only support he provides for his Motion is a notice he received from the IRS showing an amount owed to the IRS with respect to a different year (2019) than the one that was originally at issue in this case and upon which this Court's Stipulated Decision was entered (2016). Because the notice Mr. Barnes attaches to his Motion relates to his 2019 tax year, rather than the 2016 tax year, we do not see how it affects this case. In short, we lack jurisdiction to vacate the Stipulated Decision we entered in 2020.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Barnes's Motion or Rehef from Judgment/Order filed May 31, 2024, is denied.
ORDERED that Mr. Barnes is informed that the decision of the Court entered on March 25, 2020, is final, and this case remains closed.