- 12 -
tax matters partner (TMP), Richard M. Greenberg, was in
bankruptcy and was disqualified as the TMP. This is correct.
Movant then asserts that either the Tax Court or respondent
should have appointed a new TMP. This ignores the fact that,
since 1995, the Court attempted in vain to find a limited partner
who would be willing to serve as the TMP. Finally, movant
alleges that the Court’s affirmance of respondent’s
determinations created a whipsaw that “is patently unreasonable,
unfair, unjust and inequitable.” We are willing to assume that
this is also correct. But the fact is that none of these
allegations, standing alone or together, constitute a fraud on
the Court or other valid reason for vacating a final decision of
this Court.5
In concluding, we note that the decided cases regarding
vacating a final decision of the Court involve so-called
deficiency cases rather than TEFRA partnership cases. The
current section 7481(a) is derived from section 1005(a) of the
Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, tit. X, 44 Stat. 10. The
legislative history states:
Inasmuch as the statute of limitations upon assessments
and suits for collection, both of which are suspended
during review of the Commissioner’s determination,
commences to run upon the day upon which the Board’s
5 Indeed, we note that, putting aside the problem with the
finality of the decision, the movant offers no explanation as to
the reason for his failure to timely move to participate in this
proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011