- 9 -
836 (E.D. Cal. 1992), affd. without published opinion 5 F.3d 536
(9th Cir. 1993).5
Whether to grant petitioner’s motion for leave is
discretionary. Stewart v. Commissioner, supra at ___ (slip op.
at 5-6). However, a timely motion for leave, without more, is
not necessarily sufficient to persuade the Court to grant such
motion. In deciding what action to take, “We are guided
primarily by whether it would be in the interest of justice to
vacate the prior decision. But, we also recognize that
litigation must end at sometime.” Estate of Egger v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1079, 1083 (1989); Manchester Group v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-576.
Petitioner failed to file an amended petition or to pay the
required filing fee in accordance with the Court’s January 27,
2005, order. On May 6, 2005, the Court extended the time for
petitioner to file an amended petition until May 26, 2005, and
waived the filing fee. On June 8, 2005, the Court again extended
the time for petitioner to file an amended petition until June
30, 2005. On June 28, 2005, and for the third time, the Court
further extended the time for petitioner to file an amended
5 In Nordvik v. Commissioner, 67 F.3d 1489, 1492 n.2 (9th
Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-731, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit expressly adopted the reasoning of the District
Court in Haley v. Commissioner, 805 F. Supp. 834 (E.D. Cal.
1992), affd. without published opinion 5 F.3d 536 (9th Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011