- 13 -
No. 114-88) under Rule 162. Petitioner admits in his brief that
“The proper course of action to challenge the tax and interest
assessments on the grounds raised herein would be to petition the
Tax Court for leave to file a Motion to Vacate its decision.”
Adjudication of those grounds here would subject the validity of
the decision in the Lumenetics case to an impermissible
collateral attack. Cf. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300,
313 (1995) (quoting Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314
(1967)); McCorkle v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 56, 65-66 (2005);
Sennett v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 694, 696-697 (1978); Hackworth
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-173.
(As indicated above, other partners in the Lumenetics
partnership attempted and failed in the Tax Court as well as in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to have the
decision in Lumenetics vacated. Our statement regarding the
proper procedure for challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in
that case should not be construed as a recommendation that the
course be further pursued.)
Even if petitioner were entitled to contest the underlying
tax liability in this case, he has not shown, and apparently is
unable to show, that disallowance of the partnership losses
claimed on his individual returns for the years in issue is
erroneous. Petitioner admitted at trial that he never had
records of income or expenses incurred by the partnerships that
were deducted on his returns. The bottom line is that petitioner
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