Ralph Tashjian - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          formed under California law and/or (2) the criminal investigation           
          of DiRicco made him a disqualified TMP and he breached his                  
          fiduciary duties as a TMP by not giving petitioner notice of the            
          Lumenetics case.  Petitioner contends that, because the decision            
          in Lumenetics should be void for lack of jurisdiction, the                  
          assessments against him in this case (based on partnership                  
          adjustments made by the IRS) were improper.                                 
               Rule 162 provides that a party seeking to vacate a decision            
          must file an appropriate motion within 30 days after the decision           
          is entered, unless the Court allows otherwise.  Whether the Court           
          allows the filing of a motion to vacate a decision after the                
          referenced 30-day period is generally within the sound discretion           
          of the Court.  See Estate of Egger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1079,           
          1083 (1989); see also Adkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-              
          260.  Even if a decision is otherwise final, the Court has                  
          jurisdiction to vacate a decision that is void; i.e., because the           
          Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the decision in the first                
          place.  See Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir.            
          1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 105-106 (1988);                 
          Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1001-              
          1002 (1978); see also Adkins v. Commissioner, supra.                        
               Though petitioner may be allowed to raise at any time the              
          issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction making a decision              
          void, he concedes that the proper course for him would have been            
          to file a motion to vacate that decision (in Lumenetics, docket             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011