Opinion
12150-21L
03-06-2023
SMART MAILERS, L.L.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Cary Douglas Pugh, Judge.
Respondent filed two motions: a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Quarters 03/2013, 12/2013, 03/2014 through 12/2014, and 03/2015 through 09/2015 and To Strike; and a Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness as to Taxable Quarters 06/2013 and 12/2015, and supplemented its motion to include taxable quarter 03/2016. We set respondent's motions for hearing at the November 28, 2022, trial calendar in New Orleans, Louisiana. Both parties appeared and were heard. During this hearing we advised the parties that if they wished to file post hearing supplements, we would consider them, but we were not asking them to do so; nor were we expecting them to do so.
On February 6, 2023, we granted respondent's motions and dismissed the case as moot as to 06/2013, 12/2015, 03/2016, and for lack of jurisdiction as to 03/2013, 12/2013, 03/2014 through 12/2014, and 03/2015 through 09/2015. On February 10, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Memorandum, and lodged a Memorandum. Because petitioner's motion was filed after we issued the order of dismissal, we deem this motion as a motion to vacate or revise our order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 162 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner's motion is timely and we consider it appropriate given our concern, expressed at the hearing, that an action by respondent might have rendered petitioner's case moot requiring petitioner to file a case in a different court to pursue its claim.
The disposition of a motion under Rule 162 to vacate or revise a decision rests within the Court's discretion. See e.g. Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986). A motion to vacate generally will not be 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. Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185 (2008); Brannon's Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). Petitioner's additional arguments do not overcome the obstacle we addressed in our order of dismissal; namely, that we lack jurisdiction to hear them. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006).
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Memorandum, filed February 10, 2023, is recharacterized as a Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal, filed as of the date of this order, and denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Memorandum, lodged February 10, 2023, is recharacterized as a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal and filed as of the date of this Order.