- 11 -
motion. In deciding what action to take, “We are guided
primarily by whether it would be in the interest of justice to
vacate the prior decision. But, we also recognize that
litigation must end at sometime.” Estate of Egger v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1079, 1083 (1989); Manchester Group v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-576. A repeated failure to follow
the Court’s orders by the party filing the motion for leave is a
factor that would weigh against granting the motion.
Petitioner failed to timely respond to the Court’s October
21, 2005, order to file a proper petition. After his case was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner waited until the
time for appeal was about to expire to file his motion for leave.
Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s subsequent orders
directing him to file a reply to respondent’s objection to
petitioner’s motion for leave and to file a response to
respondent’s motion to permit levy is the most recent example of
petitioner’s failures to properly pursue this matter.
Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion and in the
interests of justice, we will deny petitioner’s motion for leave.
It follows that the Court’s order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction in this case became final on April 24, 2006, 91 days
after our order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.9 Because
9 Apr. 23, 2006, the 90th day after the Court entered the
order of dismissal, fell on a Sunday. Although that is the day
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011