- 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