- 18 - The estate’s argument that Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 342 (2000), is factually distinguishable from the instant case is misplaced. The estate contends that, unlike Estate of Smith, the legal process and bases for the Court’s decisions in the Kanter deficiency cases have “been disallowed * * * and completely vacated.” The estate further contends that, unlike the instant case, this Court’s decision in Estate of Smith was never vacated. However, in Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 198 F.3d at 532, the Court of Appeals concluded its opinion by stating that “the rulings of the Tax Court are reversed, the judgment vacated, and this case is remanded” and its mandate stated: “REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.” Thus, this Court was instructed to vacate its decision in Estate of Smith pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ mandate.10 We are not persuaded that the reversal of this Court’s decisions in Inv. Research Associates, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-407, because of flaws in the Court’s internal review and adoption process, is meaningfully different from the reversal of our decision in Estate of Smith. In both cases, the appellate mandate required this Court’s decisions to be vacated for the purpose of allowing further proceedings to correct the errors identified during the appellate 10 To comply with such a mandate, this Court’s prior decision must be vacated to make way for the entry of a new decision based upon the further proceedings mandated by the reviewing court.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011