Opinion
3579-22 6496-23
10-30-2023
ANNETTE RICHARDSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On January 27, 2022, petitioner filed a Petition at Docket No. 3579-22. Therein petitioner disputed a notice of deficiency issued with respect to tax year 2019. On May 20, 2022, the Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner had not paid the filing fee.
On April 13, 2023, petitioner submitted a document that was filed as a Petition at Docket No. 6496-23. On the petition form, petitioner indicated that she was disputing a notice of deficiency, as well as requesting relief from joint and several liability, for tax years 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Petitioner has since clarified that she "is concerned only with the amount owed to the Petitioner from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the taxable year 2019, which arose out of a deficiency notice from the IRS for the taxable year 2019." The case at Docket No. 6496-23 thus appears to be a motion to vacate the Order of Dismissal entered in the case at Docket No. 3579-22 and we will treat it as such.
A motion to vacate a decision generally must be filed "within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit." Rule 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Furthermore, the Tax Court generally cannot consider a motion to vacate that is made after a decision becomes final. Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g, 86 T.C. 1319 (1986). A decision becomes final "[u]pon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal, if no such notice has been duly filed within such time." Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7481(a)(1). The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days to be timely. I.R.C. § 7483. Petitioner filed her Motion to Vacate 328 days after the Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction was entered in Docket No. 3579-22.
The Court's decision was already final when petitioner filed the Motion to Vacate. Once a decision becomes final, the Court's jurisdiction to revise or vacate that decision is severely limited. As discussed in Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 419-20 (2014), the finality of a decision is absolute, with few exceptions not applicable here. And because the Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's 2019 tax year, we are unable to address her concerns about a request for a refund.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall copy the Petition filed in the case at Docket No. 6496-23 and shall file it as of its date of receipt as petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162 in the case at Docket No. 3579-22. It is further
ORDERED that, for the reasons discussed above, petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162 is denied. It is further
ORDERED that the case filed at Docket No. 6496-23 is closed on the ground of duplication with the case filed at Docket No. 3579-22. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed at Docket No. 6496-23, is denied as moot.