- 4 -
By order dated December 1, 2005, the Court directed
petitioner to file a proper amended petition and to pay the
filing fee on or before January 17, 2006. The order stated that
if an amended petition and the filing fee were not received on or
before January 17, 2006, the case would be dismissed.
On March 13, 2006, the Court entered an order of dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction (order of dismissal) because petitioner
failed to respond to the December 1, 2005, order. Ninety-two
days later, on June 13, 2006, the Court received a document from
petitioner which stated:
United States Tax Court,
I am requesting an order vacating the order of
dismissal dated March 13, 2006 of case assigned Docket
Number 22510-05, and ask that it be REINSTATED. The
case was ordered closed through correspondence dated
March 13, 2006 (also enclosed). I have enclosed a
petition form and form designating place of trial.
The Court filed petitioner’s document as a motion for leave to
file motion to vacate embodying motion to vacate order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (motion for leave).2 The
envelope that contained petitioner’s motion for leave was
postmarked June 8, 2006, 87 days after the Court entered its
2 Except in limited circumstances that do not apply here,
Rule 54 generally requires motions to be separately stated and
not joined together. We allowed the document to be filed here in
the interest of judicial administration but do not purport to
sanction the filing of joint motions in future cases.
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