- 47 -
should be granted because this Court never had jurisdiction over
the underlying case since Winer was not authorized to file a
petition with this Court. Participants further contend that
fraud was committed upon this Court by respondent. Additionally,
they argue that the notices of FPAA were not timely. Partici-
pants' motion is based upon their wish to have this Court vacate
the underlying decision so they no longer will be responsible for
amounts that have been assessed against them by respondent. In
response, respondent argues that Winer was the proper TMP of
Davenport with authority to file the petition with this Court,
and, in the alternative, that participants' motion should be
denied because a timely petition was filed by Winer as notice
partner and ratified by the other partners of Davenport.
Additionally, respondent strongly denies committing fraud upon
this Court. Respondent points out that participants' arguments
concerning the alleged expiration of the statutory period for
assessment are not relevant since those arguments involve an
affirmative defense that was not raised timely and do not affect
this Court's jurisdiction.
The date of a decision of this Court is the date an order
specifying the amount of the deficiencies is entered in the
records of the Tax Court, here February 23, 1994. Sec. 7459(c).
A decision of this Court becomes final upon expiration of the
time to file the notice of appeal if no notice of appeal is
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011