- 11 -
or on or before a prescribed date, section 7502 does not apply to
motions for leave.” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed, holding that “The combined effect of � 7481(a)
and � 7483 of the Internal Revenue Code and of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 13(a) is to create a ninety-day period to
file a notice of appeal or a motion for leave. This ninety-day
period is a ‘prescribed period’ within the meaning of �
7502(a)(1).” Manchester Group v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d at
1089.6
The instant case provides an occasion to reconsider our
Memorandum Opinion in Manchester Group. In Lawrence v.
Commissioner, 27 T.C. 713, 716 (1957), revd. 258 F.2d 562 (9th
Cir. 1958), we stated:
One of the difficult problems which confronted the
Tax Court, soon after it was created in 1926 as the
Board of Tax Appeals, was what to do when an issue came
before it again after a Court of Appeals had reversed
its prior decision on that point. Clearly, it must
thoroughly reconsider the problem in the light of the
reasoning of the reversing appellate court and, if
6 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit further
reasoned that the mere existence of limited exceptions in which
the Tax Court can grant a motion for leave after the decision
becomes final, e.g., lack of jurisdiction to have entered the
decision in the first place or fraud on the court, does not mean
there is not a prescribed period. Manchester Group v.
Commissioner, 113 F.3d 1087, 1089 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1994-604.
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