Opinion
16588-22
04-17-2023
DORIAN BRAVO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On December 28, 2022, the Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On March 29, 2023, the Court received from petitioner a Second Amended Petition, in which petitioner continues to assert the merits of petitioner's case. Accordingly, we will treat petitioner's Second Amended Petition as a Motion to Vacate the Court's Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The disposition of a motion to vacate or revise a decision rests within this Court's discretion. See, e.g., Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986). 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. 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. The Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not timely filed.
However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner is free to continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS, possibly by means of a request for audit reconsideration.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Second Amended Petition is recharacterized as a Motion to Vacate. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate is denied.