Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03877/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03877-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard E. Clendenen
Appellant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3877

___________

Howard E. Clendenen, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2007

 Filed: September 20, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Howard Clendenen appeals the tax court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) motion. Upon de novo review, see Arkansas Oil and Gas, Inc. v.

Comm’r, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review), we conclude that the

tax court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because it was filed approximately

two-and-a-half years after the court’s decision became final, and no extraordinary

circumstances existed that would have given the court jurisdiction to modify or vacate

its judgment. See Arkansas Oil and Gas, 114 F.3d at 799-800 (vacating tax court’s

denial of taxpayer’s motion to vacate because tax court lacked jurisdiction to hear

motion after tax court’s decision became final, absent extraordinary circumstances);

cf. Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assoc., 194 F.3d 922, 925-

Appellate Case: 06-3877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353720
-2-

26 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) motion because

change in law is not by itself an extraordinary circumstance, and district court did not

abuse its discretion in giving weight to equitable considerations in denying motion).

Accordingly, we vacate the tax court’s denial of Clendenen’s motion to vacate.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353720