- 11 -
jurisdiction over the petitioner. Accord Billingsley v.
Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989); Brannon’s of
Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978).
This Court has also vacated a final decision in the
situation where there was a clerical error in the decision
document that was not discovered until after the decision had
become final. See Michaels v. Commissioner, 144 F.3d 495 (7th
Cir. 1998), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-294.4
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a final
decision of the Tax Court could be vacated in situations
involving a mutual mistake. Reo Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner,
219 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1955). However, in a more recent case,
Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 1995), the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Reo Motors, Inc.
was overruled by the Supreme Court in Lasky v. Commissioner, 352
U.S. 1027 (1957), and that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit would no longer follow the rationale of Reo Motors, Inc.
3. Movant’s Grounds for Vacating the Decision
Irrespective of which standard of the cases discussed above
is used, movant’s allegations fall far short for purposes of
vacating our decision in this case. He alleges that the named
4 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that
the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to vacate a final decision in
the absence of “extraordinary circumstances.” See Ark. Oil &
Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011