Opinion
16660-22
11-18-2022
MARCUS QUIN BUTLER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
An Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction was entered in the above-docketed matter on October 21, 2022. Subsequently, on November 10, 2022, the Court received from petitioner a document filed as a Motion To Vacate Order of Dismissal. Therein, petitioner asked to amend his complaint and to have the case "switched to the proper court in Texas that has the right jurisdiction". He also attached an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice CP13 dated October 24, 2022, for the 2021 taxable year.
The disposition of a motion under Rule 162 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure to vacate or revise a decision, including an order of dismissal, rests within the Court's discretion, and such motions generally will not be granted absent a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, e.g., mutual mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief. See, e.g., Rule 1(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978); Brewer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-10; Kun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-273; Lowry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-10; Estate of Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-25.
Moreover, as expounded in the Court's previous disposition, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). As relevant here, a valid notice of deficiency or determination is a prerequisite to a Tax Court case, i.e., as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court". See Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
The petition here was not premised on a proper "ticket", and nothing in or attached to petitioner's motion alters that scenario. Additionally, the Tax Court has no authority to "switch" cases to any other court.
Accordingly, the Court's previous dismissal must stand. No substantial error or similar basis for the granting of a motion to vacate under Rule 162 has been shown.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's just-referenced Motion To Vacate Order of Dismissal, filed November 10, 2022, is denied.