- 44 -
finality of judgments.” Accordingly, the authority of the Tax
Court to act on a motion to vacate a decision that has become
final is extremely limited. Cinema ‘84 v. Commissioner, supra at
270.
We have recently reviewed the limited exceptions to finality
in Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, supra at 27-28. There, we
observed the general principle that the finality of a decision is
absolute. See Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. at 1323. We
noted, however, that we have jurisdiction to set aside a decision
where there is a fraud on the Court. See Toscano v.
Commissioner, supra; Kenner v. Commissioner, 387 F.2d 689 (7th
Cir. 1968); Taub v. Commissioner, supra at 751; see also Senate
Realty Corp. v. Commissioner, 511 F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1975).29 In
Toscano, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the
exception to finality for fraud on the Court by saying: “a
decision obtained by fraud on the Tax Court can be set aside by
it at any time because it is not a decision at all--a view
29In addition to fraud on the court, there are some other
narrow exceptions to finality. Thus, this Court and some Courts
of Appeals have ruled that this Court may vacate a final decision
if that decision is shown to be void, or a legal nullity, for
lack of jurisdiction over either the subject matter or the party.
See Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084-1085 (9th
Cir. 1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 105-106 (1988);
Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978).
We have also vacated a final decision where a 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. There has been no suggestion that any of these other
exceptions to finality applies in the cases at hand.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011