- 18 -
In support of their position, petitioners rely on section
7459(c) and the case of Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-328, affd. 15 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 1994), for the proposition
that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is tantamount to a
decision of this Court. Section 7459(c) provides:
(c) Date of Decision.--A decision of the Tax Court
(except a decision dismissing a proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction) shall be held to be rendered upon the
date that an order specifying the amount of the
deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court
or, in the case of a declaratory judgment proceeding
under part IV of this subchapter, or under section 7428
or in the case of an action brought under section 6226
or section 6228(a), the date of the court's order
entering the decision. If the Tax Court dismisses a
proceeding for reasons other than lack of jurisdiction
and is unable from the record to determine the amount
of the deficiency determined by the Secretary, or if
the Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction, an order to that effect shall be entered
in the records of the Tax Court, and the decision of
the Tax Court shall be held to be rendered upon the
date of such entry. [Emphasis added.]
Indeed, in Hambrose II, this Court did grant a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction, but only as to a single issue in the
case, not as to the entire proceeding. By granting the motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with respect to the at-risk
issue under section 465, this Court did not dismiss the entire
partnership proceeding but, rather, dismissed only that portion
of the proceeding that related to the at-risk issues under
section 465. Consequently, under section 7459(c), a decision in
Hambrose II was not rendered on October 6, 1993, the date the
Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011