- 5 -
grant respondent’s request for leave to file respondent’s motion
to vacate.
We turn to consider respondent’s motion to vacate. The
Court’s jurisdiction to vacate a final decision is more limited
than the Court’s jurisdiction to vacate a decision that is not
final. See Cinema ‘84 v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 264, 270 (2004);
see also Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 1995).
Notwithstanding whether a decision is final, however, the Court
always has jurisdiction to vacate a decision that is void; e.g.,
because the Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the decision in
the first place. See Roberts v. Commissioner, supra at 892 n.3;
Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989);
Abeles v. Commissioner, supra at 105-106; Brannon’s of Shawnee,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1001-1002; see also Jordon v.
Gilligan, supra at 704. Respondent asserts that the stipulated
decision is void in that it was entered in violation of the
automatic stay. We agree. Actions taken in this Court in
violation of the automatic stay are void, see Roberts v.
Commissioner, supra at 892 n.3; Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1000-1002; see also Prevo v. Commissioner,
123 T.C. 326 (2004); Drake v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 320 (2004);
Halpern v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 895 (1991), and one of those
actions is “the commencement or continuation of a proceeding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011