- 4 -
On March 6, 2006, 89 days after the order of dismissal was
entered, petitioner mailed to the Court, among other documents, a
Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and
Amended Petition. On March 14, 2006, 97 days after the order of
dismissal was entered, the Court received petitioner’s motion to
vacate and amended petition. On March 16, 2006, the Court
returned the aforementioned documents to petitioner unfiled
explaining that the order of dismissal was final and the
documents were late. On June 6, 2006, petitioner mailed to the
Court two documents entitled “Motion for Permission to Re-File
Motions” (motion for leave) and “Motion to Vacate the Order of
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction” (motion to vacate). On June
9, 2006, the Court received the documents and filed petitioner’s
motion for leave as a “Motion for Leave to File Motion to
Vacate”. The Court received petitioner’s amended petition with
the motion for leave and motion to vacate.
Discussion
This Court can proceed in a case only if it has
jurisdiction, and either party, or the Court sua sponte, can
question jurisdiction at any time. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127
T.C. ___, ___ (2006) (slip op. at 6); Estate of Young v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 880-881 (1983).
On December 7, 2005, we dismissed petitioner’s case for lack
of jurisdiction. An order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011