Opinion
14986-19
10-05-2023
CLAUDE FRANKLIN SANDERS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Travis A. Greaves, Judge
On June 14, 2023, the Court issued a written opinion in this case (T.C. Memo. 2023-71). On July 7, 2023, the Court entered its decision, and the case was closed.
This case is before the Court on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion under Rule 161, filed July 13, 2023, and Motion to Vacate or Revise a Decision under Rule 162, filed July 24, 2023. Petitioner's motions request that the Court reconsider its memorandum opinion issued June 14, 2023, and vacate the decision entered for respondent on July 7, 2023. On August 17, 2023, petitioner filed a motion titled "Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161" (motion to withdraw). Given the content of this document and references to other docket entries, the motion is more properly viewed as a Motion to Withdraw Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, and we will recharacterize it as such.
Unless otherwise indicated, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times.
Simultaneously, petitioner filed a First Amendment to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162 (first amendment). Petitioner represents in the title of this amendment that respondent does not object to the granting of the motion. On August 31, 2023, we ordered respondent to file a response to the First Amendment to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162. In his Response filed September 29, 2023, respondent objected to the First Amendment to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162. For the reasons set forth below, we deny petitioner's motions.
I. Motion to Withdraw
Petitioner's motion to withdraw was filed contemporaneously with his first amendment. The motion to withdraw indicates that petitioner filed the motion to correct a typographical error related to the date on which we entered the decision against him. The deadline for filing a motion to vacate has passed. To give effect to petitioner's intention to merely amend his motion to vacate rather than withdraw, we deny petitioner's motion to withdraw.
II. Motion to Vacate and Motion for Reconsideration
The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 161 or Rule 162 lies within the Court's discretion. See Bedrosian v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 152, 156 (2015); Kun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-273, slip op. at 5, aff'd, 157 Fed.Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 161 authorizes a party to file a motion for reconsideration of an opinion or findings of fact within 30 days after a written opinion has been served. Motions for reconsideration generally are granted to correct substantial errors of fact or law or to introduce newly discovered evidence that was not available to the moving party at the time of the proceeding. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998); CWT Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1054, 1057 (1982), aff'd, 755 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1985).
Rule 162 authorizes a party to file a motion to vacate or revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit. Motions to vacate generally are not granted without a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief. See Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1000-01 (1978); Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-204, at *8, aff'd, 775 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2015). A motion under Rule 161 or Rule 162 is "not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments or tendering new legal theories to reach the end result desired by the moving party." Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 441-42; Turner v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 306, 307-08 (2012); Stoody v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 643, 644 (1977).
In his motions, petitioner does not point to substantial error or unusual circumstances that would warrant vacatur and reconsideration. Rather, petitioner continues to assert frivolous arguments regarding whether he is subject to tax. Specifically, petitioner continues to assert that the Department of the Treasury failed to comply with publication requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act and asserts a new argument that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. We previously weighed and considered petitioner's frivolous argument that he is not subject to tax, and to the extent he advances new arguments, his motions are not the appropriate forum to bring these arguments.
Petitioner's motions fail to satisfy the high standard for vacating and reconsidering an opinion of this Court, and we will deny petitioner's motions. In light of our prior opinion and denial of these motions, we encourage petitioner to recall his statement at trial: "So I just have to take the consequences, I suppose, if I'm wrong."
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, filed August 17, 2023, is recharacterized as Motion to Withdraw Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, filed August 17, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, filed July 13, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Pursuant to Rule 162, filed July 24, 2023, and amended on August 17, 2023, is denied.