Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

99 Citing cases

  1. Abeles v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    90 T.C. 8 (U.S.T.C. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    In Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 1988 WL 2747 (1988), this Court held that it had the authority to vacate an otherwise final decision in a situation where the Court never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner.

    H filed a petition and an amended petition forging W's signature. Decision was entered against H and W. After the decision became final, W moved to vacate the decision as it related to W. HELD, the decision will be vacated as it relates to W because the decision was entered when the Court lacked jurisdiction over W. Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978) followed. William Weintraub, for the petitioner Barbara Abeles.

  2. Bliss v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 10609-24 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 30, 2024)

    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).

  3. Marquart v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13056-22SL (U.S.T.C. Aug. 16, 2024)

    assist us in applying the Rule. See, e.g., Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 267-68 (2004); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1001 (1978). Rule 60(b) specifies six reasons why a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.2

  4. Farner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    Docket No. 11313-08 (U.S.T.C. Apr. 18, 2012)

    A final decision, however, can be vacated upon a showing that the Court was without jurisdiction to enter it or that the decision was entered in furtherance of a fraud on the Court. See Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084-1085 (9th Cir. 1989); Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 86 T.C. 1319 (1986); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1002 (1978); Casey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-672. Neither condition applies here.

  5. Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    71 T.C. 108 (U.S.T.C. 1978)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion filed pursuant to Rule 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, to vacate the decision entered in this case on December 22, 1976. Petitioner was previously granted special leave to file its motion to vacate at 69 T.C. 999 (1978). At issue is whether the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction of this case because the petition was filed and decision stipulated by a corporate petitioner which had merged into another corporation 3 years earlier.

  6. Tang v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13372-21S (U.S.T.C. Dec. 16, 2024)

    As Rule 162 does not articulate the standard by which the Court evaluates a Motion to Vacate or Revise a Decision, we look to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving issues raised in a motion to vacate a decision. See, e.g., Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 267- 68 (2004); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1000-01 (1978). Motions to vacate are generally not

  7. Hartman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 1713-24 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 5, 2024)

    , we look to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving issues raised in a motion to vacate a decision. Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). Motions to vacate are generally not granted absent a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, e.g., mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

  8. Atkins v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 23486-22 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 5, 2024)

    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). Petitioner did not file a proper motion for leave along with his Motion, and we could reject his Motion on that basis alone.

  9. Seekamp v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 12334-23L (U.S.T.C. Dec. 4, 2024)

    Rule 162 does not provide a standard for evaluating a motion to vacate or revise, so we often refer to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and cases interpreting it to assist us in applying the rule. See, e.g., Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 267-68 (2004); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1001 (1978). Rule 60(b) specifies six categories of reasons why a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) voidness of the judgment, (5) satisfaction of the judgment, or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

  10. Knize v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13959-24 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 27, 2024)

    A motion to reconsider or to vacate typically is not granted in the absence of substantial error or unusual circumstances, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. See Bedrosian v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 152, 156 (2015); see also Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185 (2008), Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). None of those factors appear present in this case.