- 3 -
jurisdiction to decide this case. In particular, participants
allege that Samuel L. Winer (Winer) had been enjoined from acting
as tax matters partner (TMP) of Davenport Recycling Associates
(Davenport) and had no authority to sign partnership level
consents extending the statutory period of limitations for
assessment during the relevant periods or to sign the petition to
this Court on behalf of Davenport, and therefore this Court
lacked jurisdiction when the decision was entered in this case.
In addition, participants allege that the decision in this case
was obtained as a result of fraud on the Court perpetrated by
respondent because respondent's attorneys concealed from the
Court Winer's purported inability to act as TMP.2
Respondent asserts that participants' motion for special
leave should be denied because the Court had jurisdiction when
the decision was entered, and the decision was not obtained by
fraud on the Court. Respondent further asserts that
participants' motion for special leave should be denied because a
timely petition was filed by the sole general partner, Winer, and
it was ratified by the partners other than Winer.
2 In their Motion for Special Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration of Decision or to Vacate Decision, the
participants assert that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because they claim Winer did not have authority to
extend the period of limitations or to file a petition in this
Court. The participants have not requested that, in the event
the Court has jurisdiction, it should permit them to contest the
underlying issues on the merits.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011