- 9 -
As previously discussed, the record does not establish
Transpac's principal place of business. Accordingly, there is
uncertainty regarding the appropriate venue of an appeal in this
case. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(E). However, we do not find the question
of appellate venue to be critical to the disposition of the
pending motion. Applying the law to the facts presented, we
shall deny Mr. Chwasky's motion on the ground that we lack
authority to vacate the decision.
In the present case, there is no allegation that the Court
lacked jurisdiction to enter the decision of October 26, 1994, or
that the decision arose from either a fraud upon the Court or
mutual mistake. As indicated, Mr. Chwasky's motion for leave is
based solely on the equitable consideration that Transpac's
limited partners be given their day in court.
The Court entered its decision in this case after giving the
petitioners and the participating partners ample opportunity to
appoint a successor TMP. See Computer Programs Lambda, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1124, 1126 (1988). Although the apparent
lack of communication between petitioners and the participating
partners and their counsel is unfortunate, the fact remains that
the decision entered in this case is now final. Consistent with
the cases discussed above, we are obliged to respect the finality
of that decision. Consequently, we shall deny Mr. Chwasky's
Motion for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011