- 7 -
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
her 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
discretion of the Court. See Rule 162; Heim v. Commissioner, 872
F.2d 245, 246 (8th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-1; Stewart
v. Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op. at 5-6); Brookes v.
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 1, 7 (1997).
Petitioner’s original motion to vacate, which we will treat
as a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate, was postmarked
and mailed January 25, 2006, 90 days after the Court’s order of
dismissal was entered. The Court rejected petitioner’s original
motion for leave, which was mailed on January 25, 2006, because,
among other things, it was received by the Court after the case
was closed. Petitioner submitted two subsequent motions for
leave, the first of which was denied. Petitioner asserts in her
most recent motion for leave that the Court should have filed her
original motion for leave as of January 25, 2006. In view of our
recent opinion in Stewart v. Commissioner, supra, we agree.
Petitioner’s original motion for leave was postmarked and
mailed prior to the expiration of the 90-day appeal period. The
timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011