- 9 -
reasoning in those cases was specifically rejected by the Supreme
Court in Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, supra.
It may be argued that our opinion in Transp. Manufacturing &
Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, also rests on the language of
section 7482(a) and is not governed by the same principles as
cases under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
notwithstanding the analogy drawn in Lydon. Section 7482(a),
however, provides that the review of Tax Court decisions shall be
“in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the
district courts in civil actions tried without a jury”. If a
district court could not entertain a motion to vacate without the
intervention of the Court of Appeals, it would follow that the
Tax Court also cannot, and this was the holding of Lydon and its
progeny. On the other hand, the converse is that, if the
district courts can entertain motions to vacate, the Tax Court
can do likewise. Accordingly, because of the Supreme Court’s
holding in Standard Oil Co. of Cal., we will no longer follow the
Lydon case or its progeny. We hold that the Tax Court has the
authority to act on a motion to vacate a decision that has been
affirmed, reversed, or modified by the Court of Appeals.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011