- 23 -
clerical error was discovered after the decision had become
final. Michaels v. Commissioner, 144 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 1998),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-294.18 Here, it is clear that there was
neither fraud nor clerical error, but only respondent’s failure
to include the full amount of underpayment interest in his
computation of the overpayment amount. This is not grounds to
give us jurisdiction to modify our final decision.19 In Wapnick
v. Commissioner, 365 F.3d 131, 132 (2d Cir. 2004), the court
explained the finality of Tax Court decisions stating:
section 7481 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that
a decision of the Tax Court becomes final “upon the
expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition
for certiorari, if the decision of the Tax Court has
been affirmed or the appeal dismissed by the United
States Court of Appeals and no petition for certiorari
has been duly filed.” 26 U.S.C. �7481(a)(2)(A). In
18In Cinema ‘84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264 (2004), we
noted that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had
previously held that a final decision of the Tax Court could be
vacated in situations involving mutual mistake, see Reo Motors,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 219 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1955), but that 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 would no
longer follow the rationale of Reo Motors, Inc.
19In Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988),
the Commissioner sought relief from a settlement agreement
because “the computations for entry of decisions” resulted in
less than the Commissioner expected due to his miscalculations.
Id. at 320. In denying the Commissioner’s motion, we noted that
the considerations involved in whether to grant relief from the
settlement agreement were “akin to those involved in vacating a
judgment entered by consent. In such cases, the parties are held
to their agreement without regard to whether the judgment is
correct on the merits.” Id. at 322.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011