- 5 -
630 (5th Cir. 1933). But cf. Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d
618, 621-622 (6th Cir. 1995).
Petitioners do not allege that the decision is the result of
a mutual mistake or fraud on the Court, or that the Court's order
dismissing their case for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous when
entered. As we understand petitioners' argument, we now have
jurisdiction over their case because the bankruptcy court said we
do. Whether petitioners are correct that the bankruptcy court
can bestow jurisdiction on this Court retrospectively by voiding
an automatic stay ab initio we need not decide. Petitioners
failed to move this Court timely, and they have failed to set
forth any good reason why they did not. Petitioners have failed
to persuade us that we should file their motion to vacate at this
late time.
Petitioners have had a number of opportunities to maintain
their case before this Court. For example, they could have moved
the bankruptcy court for permission to petition this Court during
the period that would otherwise be covered by the automatic stay.
Likewise, they could have petitioned this Court after the
automatic stay was lifted on March 21, 1995. When an automatic
stay is in effect, section 6213(f) suspends the 90-day period in
which a taxpayer must petition the Court, see sec. 6213(a), and
gives the taxpayer at least 60 days in which to petition this
Court following the lifting of the automatic stay.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011