- 2 -
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: Petitioners have filed a
motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that has
been entered in this case. The decision is a stipulated
decision, signed by counsel for the parties, and was entered by
the Court on January 11, 1994. Petitioners' motion for leave to
file the motion to vacate was filed February 20, 1996, over 2
years after the decision was entered. No other motions, such as
a motion to vacate, or a notice of appeal have ever been filed in
this case. Concurrent with petitioners' motion for leave to file
is a motion to vacate, which petitioners lodged with the Court.
Petitioners' motion for leave to file was calendared for hearing
and was heard at this Court's Detroit, Michigan, trial session.2
In the notice of deficiency, on which this case is based,
respondent determined the following deficiencies in Federal
income taxes and additions to tax against petitioners:
2
Under the circumstances herein, the motion for leave to file
the motion to vacate is a prerequisite to filing the motion to
vacate. In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for leave
to file a motion to vacate, the Court may consider the merits of
the underlying motion to vacate to determine whether further
proceedings are appropriate. Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). Accordingly, the Court here
considers the merits of petitioners' motion to vacate, even
though the motion before the Court is a motion for leave to file
the motion to vacate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011