- 2 -
consider the substantive merits of P’s motion for leave
depends on whether it is deemed to have been filed
within the 90-day appeal period following the Court’s
order of dismissal.
Held, further: Whether P’s motion for leave was
filed within the 90-day appeal period depends on
whether the timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of
sec. 7502, I.R.C., apply to P’s motion for leave. In
Manchester Group v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-604,
revd. 113 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1997), we held that the
timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of sec. 7502,
I.R.C., did not apply to a motion for leave to file a
motion to vacate. Upon reconsideration, we now hold
that sec. 7502, I.R.C., applies to P’s motion for
leave. P’s motion for leave is deemed filed on June 8,
2006, the date it was mailed, which was before the date
on which the order of dismissal would otherwise have
become final.
Held, further: P’s motion for leave to file a
motion to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal will be
granted. As a result, P’s motion to vacate the order
of dismissal also will be deemed filed on June 8, 2006.
P’s motion to vacate will be granted. P’s amended
petition will be filed, and we continue to have
jurisdiction in this case.
William A. Stewart, pro se.
Edward F. Peduzzi, Jr., for respondent.
OPINION
RUWE, Judge: This case is before the Court on petitioner’s
motion for leave to file a motion to vacate the Court’s order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. At all relevant times,
petitioner resided in Fayette City, Pennsylvania.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011