- 30 -
LARO, J., concurring: I disagree with the implication in
this Court’s Opinion that this Court is powerless to relieve a
litigant of a final decision upon a proper showing made in
connection with a motion subject to the principles of rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (rule 60(b)). As I
concluded in my concurring opinion in Estate of Branson v.
Commissioner, 113 T.C. 6, 41 (1999), affd. 264 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.
2001), I believe that this Court is a court of law that has the
authority to apply the judicial powers of a District Court.
Whereas rule 60(b) authorizes a District Court upon motion by a
litigant to relieve that litigant of a final judgment in certain
extraordinary cases, I believe that this Court in those cases
also has that authority for the reasons that I stated in Estate
of Branson. I do not decide whether the Court in this case
should grant a motion subject to the principles of rule 60(b) in
that such a motion is not before us.
A. Motions in this Court To Vacate or Revise a Decision
Motions in this Court to vacate or revise a decision are
covered by Rule 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure
(Rule 162). Pursuant to Rule 162, “Any motion to vacate or
revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, shall
be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered,
unless the Court shall otherwise permit.” Rule 162 provides no
guidance as to when this Court will file a motion to vacate more
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011