- 5 -
On December 21, 2005, we dismissed petitioner’s case for
lack of jurisdiction. An order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction is treated as the Court’s decision. Stewart v.
Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op. at 5); Hazim v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 471, 476 (1984). Section 7459(c) provides,
in relevant part:
SEC. 7459(c). Date of Decision.–- * * *. * * *
if the Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction, an order to that effect shall be entered
in the records of the Tax Court, and the decision of
the Tax Court shall be held to be rendered upon the
date of such entry.
The word “decision” refers to decisions determining a deficiency
and orders of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Ryan v.
Commissioner, 517 F.2d 13, 16 (7th Cir. 1975); Commissioner v. S.
Frieder & Sons Co., 228 F.2d 478, 480 (3d Cir. 1955); Stewart v.
Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op. at 5).
In order for us to consider the substantive merits of
petitioner’s motion for leave, we must still have jurisdiction.
Stewart v. Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op. at 6). Except
for very limited exceptions, none of which applies here, this
Court lacks jurisdiction once an order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction becomes final within the meaning of section 7481.
Stewart v. Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op. at 6-7 & n.3). A
decision of the Tax Court becomes final “Upon the expiration of
the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal, if no such notice
has been duly filed within such time”. Sec. 7481(a)(1). Section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011