- 5 -
order of dismissal. The envelope also contained petitioner’s
amended petition and a check for the filing fee.
Discussion
I. Motion To Vacate
An order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is treated as
the Court’s decision. 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).
Rule 162 provides that “Any motion to vacate or revise a
decision, with or without a new or further trial, shall be filed
within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the
Court shall otherwise permit.” (Emphasis added.) Petitioner did
not file a motion to vacate or revise within 30 days after the
Court’s order of dismissal was entered. Therefore, in order for
his motion to vacate to be considered timely filed, Rule 162
required petitioner to file a motion for leave to file a motion
to vacate or revise, the granting of which lies within the sound
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