- 4 -
6651(a)(1) in the amounts of $3,586 and $6,797, respectively,
were due from Mr. Takamoto and petitioner for the taxable year
1979. The decision was signed by Mr. Farber on behalf of both
petitioner and Mr. Takamoto. Petitioner first became aware of
the deficiency when respondent commenced collection efforts in
early 1991. The motion currently before the Court was filed
approximately 4 years later on March 31, 1995.
In support of her motion petitioner asserts that she had no
knowledge of the deficiency, did not sign the petition, did not
know Mr. Farber, did not authorize Mr. Farber to file a petition
on her behalf, and did not authorize Mr. Farber to enter into a
settlement agreement on her behalf. For the purpose of
discussing this motion, we take these allegations as true.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to file a
motion to vacate, this Court may consider the merits of the
underlying motion to vacate. Levitt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-294. Prior to discussing the merits of the motion, however,
we note that Rule 162 provides that a motion to vacate shall be
filed within 30 days after a decision has been entered, unless
the Court shall otherwise permit. Sections 7481 and 7483 provide
that a decision of this Court becomes final, in the absence of a
timely filed notice of appeal, 90 days from the date the decision
is entered. If a motion to vacate is filed outside of the 90-day
period, this Court generally is without jurisdiction to entertain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011