14 2 T.C. No . 23

UNITED STAT ES TAX COURT

DOUGLAS P. SNOW

AND DE BORAH J. SNOW, Peti ti on ers v. COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Resp on de nt

DOUGLAS P. SNOW , Pet it io ne r v. COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Resp on de nt

Doc ke t No s. 6 83 8- 95 , 68 39 -9 5. Fi le d J un e 1 7, 2 01 4.

In19 93 R m ai le d n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy reg ard in g P s’ 19 87 an d 19 90 tax y ears . In 1 99 5 P s fi le d p et it io ns with t he Co urt. Ps m ov ed to di sm is s fo r la ck

of ju ris di ct io n a ll eg in g t ha t the no ti ces of de fic ie nc y

ha d n otbe enm ai le d t o P s’ las t kno wn ad dr es s an d wer e th eref or e in va li d. R al so m ov edto di sm is s fo r la ckof juris di ct io n be cau se th e p et it io ns were u nt im el y . Thes e cas es were as si gn edto a Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e who wrot e anin it ia l re po rt g ran ti ng Ps’ m ot io ns to di sm is s. Be cau se of t he am ou nt s i n i ss ue , th e d eci si on s i n t he se cas es were re qu ire d b y

st atut e to be m ad e b y

a reg ul ar J ud ge . After th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e subm it te d h is in it ia l re po rt f orrev ie w, th e rep ort was rewri tt ento gra ntR’s m ot io ns to di sm is s ra th er tha n P s’ m ot io ns . A regu lar Ju dg e ad op te d t he rewri tt enrep ort an d t he n en te redord ers di sm is si ng forlac k o f juri sd ic ti onon Oct. 1 5, 1 99 6. See S no w v. Co m

m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 1 99 6- 45 7. Th e o rd ers , whi chare treat edas d eci si on s, b ecame fin al on Jan . 13 , 19 97
.- 2 - InAug us t 2 00 5 the Co urt i nf orm edPs t ha t the in it ia l re po rt o f th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e h adpro po se d t o g ran t Ps ’ m ot io ns . The Co urt se ntPs aco py of th e in it ia l re po rt. Th is no ti fic at io n was inreac ti on to Bal lardv. Co m

m is si on er, 5 44 U.S. 40 (20 05 ). On J ul y 3, 2 01 3, Ps fil edm ot io ns forlea ve to fil e m ot io ns to va cat e th e o rd ers of di sm is sa l tha t h adbe co m e fi na l o n J an . 13 , 19 97
. Held : As a ge ne ral rul e, th e fi na li ty of a Tax Co urt d eci si on is ab so lu te ; the reco gn iz edex cep ti on s ar e whe n t he re h as be ena frau d on th e Co urt o r whe n the de ci si on was v oi d b ecau se th e Co urt d idno t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to en te r th e d eci si on . Here th ere was no frau d o n th e Co urt an d the Co urt cl earl y ha d juris di ct io n t o d eci de whet he r we ha d juris di ct io n t o re de te rm in e th e d efi ci en ci es in vo lv ed . Ps’ m ot io ns wil l b e d en ie d.
Jo na th anP. Decat or sm ith, fo r pe ti ti on ers . Geo rg e W. Bezo ld , forres po nd en t.

OPINION
RUWE , Ju dg e: The m at te r be fo re u s co nc ern s p et it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns forlea ve to fil e m ot io ns to va cat e o rd ers of d is m is sa l. The m ot io ns were fi le d o n J ul y 3, 1 20 13 . The o rd ers of d is m is sa l tha t p et it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns see k t o v acat e were
en te redon Octo be r 15 , 19 96 , pu rs ua ntto ou r op in io n i n S no w v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 1 99 6- 45 7. Pro po se d m ot io ns to va cat e were e m bo di edinpe ti ti on ers ’ m ot io ns for 1 le av e to fil e.- 3 - Bac kg ro un d The pe ti ti on s i n the se cas es were fi le d i n 1 99 5 re ga rd in g n ot ic es of de fic ie nc y

forth e ta xabl e y ears 19 87 an d 1 99 0. Th e n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy ha d be enm ai le d i n M ay

19 93
. Sh ortl y aft er the pe ti ti on s wer e fi le d, the pa rti es each m ov edto di sm is s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Pe ti ti on ers all eg edth atth e n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy were i nv al id be cau se th ey

ha d n otbe ensen t t o p et it io ne rs ’ la stkn ownad dr es s as requi redby
se ct io n 6 21 2. Res po nd en t al le ge d t ha t the no ti ces of d efi ci en cy ha d b eensen t t o 2 pe ti ti on ers ’ la stkn own ad dr es s, an d wer e v al id , bu t tha t the pe ti ti on s h adno t b een fil edwithi n the 90 -d ay

pe rio d fo ll owi ng th e d at es on whi chth e n ot ic es of de fic ie nc y

ha d b eenm ai le d a s re qu ire d b y sec ti on 62 13 (a). Th e Co urt g ran te d
res po nd en t’s m ot io ns to di sm is s, h ol di ng th atth e n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy were v al id
an d the pe ti ti on s wer e unt im el y . Sect io n 7 45 9( c) p ro vi de s tha t “ if the Tax C ourt d is mis se s a p ro ceed in g fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n, an ord er t o tha t ef fectsh al l b e en te redinth e rec or ds of t he Tax Co urt, an d the de ci si onof t he Tax C ou rt s ha ll be he ldto be ren de redup on th e da te of s uc h e nt ry .” “ [A]n or de r of di sm is sa l fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n i s treat edas Unl es s o th erwi se in di cat ed , all sec ti on refe ren ces are t o t he Int ern al 2 Rev enue Co de , andall Ru le refe ren ces are t o t he Tax C ou rt Rul es of P ract ic e an d Pro cedur e ap pl ic ab le to th e rel ev an t ev en ts .- 4 -

th e Co urt’s d eci si on .” Ste wartv. Co m mis si on er, 1 27 T.C. 10 9, 1 12 (20 06 ). Sect io n 7 48 1( a)(1 ) pr ov id es th atth e d eci si onof t he Tax C ourt b eco m es fin al up on th e ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e al lo wedforfil in g an app eal . Sect io n 7 48 3 p ro vi de s tha t
a n ot ic e o f ap pe al m

us t b e fi le d wi th in 90 da y s af te r th e d eci si on of t he Tax C ou rt is en te red . Peti ti on ers di d n otap pe al , andth e Co urt’s d eci si on s b ecame fin al on Ja nu ary 13 , 19 97
. Pet it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns forlea ve to fil e m ot io ns to va cat e co m e o ve r 16 y ears aft er the de ci si on s i n the se cas es be cam e fi na l. Pet it io ne rs , ho wev er, arg ue th at sp eci al cir cu m st an ces warran t v acat in g t he se de ci si on s. Th es e ci rcu m st an ces requi re s om e ex pl an at io n. The de ci si on s i n the se cas es were en te redby Jud ge Dawso n andwere b as ed
on anop in io n o f Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e Gol db erg with wh ic h J ud ge Dawso n a gr eed
. 3 See S no w v. Co m

m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 1 99 6- 45 7. Pu rs ua ntto sec ti on 74 43 A, th e Ch ie f Ju dg e m ay

ass ig n c ert ai n t y

pe s o f cas es to be he ardby a Spec ia l Tri al Ju dg e. Incas es su chas p et it io ne rs ’, whi chin vo lv eddi sp ut edde fic ie nc ie s

The Tax C ou rt i s co m

po se d o f Ju dg es ap po in te d b y th e Pre si de ntan d 3 se ve ral Sp eci al Trial Ju dg es ap po in te d fr om ti m e to ti m e b y

th e Tax Co urt’s Ch ie f Ju dg e. Ju dg e Daws on was app oi nt edby the Pres id en t.- 5 -

ex ceed in g $ 10 ,00 0, sec ti on 74 43 A requi reda pr es id en ti al ly app oi nt edjud ge 4 (h erei na fte r reg ul ar Jud ge ) to m ak e th e d eci si on . See Ru le s 1 80 , 18 1, an d 1 83 as th ey ex is te d p rio r to am en dm en t i n 2 00 5. Atth e ti m e th e in st an t ca se s wer e de ci de d, i t was th e p ract ic e o f th e Co urt t o h av e th e rep ort o f a Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e in su cha cas e subm it te d t o the Ch ie f Ju dg e, who wou ldth enass ig n i t t o areg ul ar Ju dg e fo r rev ie w, ado pt io n, an d e nt ry of d eci si on . If, up on rev ie w, th e reg ul ar Ju dg e d is ag reedwith the Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s rep ort, the two wou ldco nf er an d ch an ge s m ig htbe m ad e th ro ug h aco ll ab or at iv e p ro ces s. See Bal lardv. Co m m is si on er, 5 44 U.S. 40 , 57 (20 05 ). The Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l re po rt i n t he se cas es , whi chwas s ub m it te d to th e Ch ie f Ju dg e p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 83 (b ), ha d p ro po se d t o g ran t p et it io ne rs ’
m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ckof juris di ct io n b ecau se th e n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy ha d
no t b eenpro pe rly sen t t o p et it io ne rs ’ la stkn own ad dr es s. Inarri vi ng at t hi s
co nc lu si on , th e in it ia l re po rt e m ph as iz edcert ai n fa ct s an d c irc um st an ces th at
oc cu rredaft er the m ai li ng of the no ti ces of d efi ci en cy . Afte r th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e subm itte d h is in it ia l re po rt t o the Ch ie f Ju dg e, th e rep ort was rewri tt en . The rewr it te n re po rt e xp la in edth atth e ap pr op ria te tes t fo r de ci di ng whet he r th e n ot ic es were p ro pe rly addres se d was whet he r, atth e ti m e The am ou ntis no w $5 0,0 00 . See s ec. 7 44 3A( b) (3 ), (c). 4- 6 -

th e n ot ic es of d efi ci en cy

were m ai le d, the Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e (IR S) kne w or sh ou ldha ve kn own th atpe ti ti on ers ha d m ov edto a ne w add res s. See W ardv. Co m m is si on er, 9 07 F.2d51 7 (5 th Cir . 19 90 ), rev ’g 92 T.C. 94 9 (1 98 9) ; Po m ero y v. Un it edSta te s, 8 64 F.2d11 91 (5t h C ir. 1 98 9) ; M on ge v. Co m m is si on er, 9 3 T.C. 22 (19 89 ). Usi ng th is an al y si s, the rev is edrep ort co ns id eredfact s o ccu rri ng aft er th e m ai li ng of t he no ti ces of d efi ci en cy to be irr el ev an t an d h el d t ha t the no ti ces of de fic ie nc y

ha d b eenm ai le d t o p et it io ne rs ’ la stkn own ad dr es s. As a res ul t, the
rev is edrep ort h el d tha t the no ti ces of d efi ci en cy were v al idan d t ha t re sp on de nt ’s
m ot io ns to di sm is s s ho ul d b e g ran te d b ecau se th e p et it io ns were u nt im el y . Ju dg e Dawso n the n a do pt edth e rev is edrep ort, wh ic h app ears at T.C. Me m o. 1 99 6- 45 7,
an d, o n Oct ob er 1 5, 1 99 6, en te redth e o rd ers (de ci si on s) gra nt in g re sp on de nt ’s
m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ckof juris di ct io n. Inacco rd an ce wi th Ru le 18 3 i n e ffec t fr om 19 83 to 20 05 , itwas the Tax Co urt’s p ract ic e to tre ata Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l re po rt s ub m it te d t o t he Ch ie f Ju dg e fo r ad op ti on an d d eci si on by a regu lar Ju dg e as anin te rn al do cum en t. The refo re, Sp eci al Trial Ju dg es ’ in it ia l re po rts were n otm ad e av ai labl e to th e pa rti es . Onl y

th e ad op te d re po rts an d t he de ci si on s wer e se rv edon th e p art ie s. See B al lardv. Co m

m is si on er, 5 44 U.S. at 4 5- 46
.- 7 -

Years lat er, i n 2 00 5, a c as e h an dl edun de r Ru le 18 3 a s i t ex is te d fr om 19 83 to 20 05 was h eardby the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. InBal lard , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t fo r pu rp os es of app eal in g aTax C ou rt d eci si on , th e p art ie s wer e
en ti tl edto ha ve acce ss to a co py of th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l re po rt. Th e Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t thi s was requi redbe cau se anap pe ll at e co urt co ul d n ot ot he rwis e rev ie w whet he r th e reg ul ar J ud ge ha d p ro pe rly fol lo wedRu le 18 3, whi chrequi redth atth e reg ul ar Jud ge gi ve du e reg ardto th e fac t tha t the Sp eci al Tria l Jud ge ha d the op po rtu ni ty to ev al ua te th e cre di bi li ty of witne ss es an d g iv e th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s fi nd in gs of f actth e p res um

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s. Nei th er Bal lardno r Ru le 18 3 re qu ire d the rev ie win g J ud ge to alwa y s ac cep t the fin di ng s of th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e. Ru le 18 3 p erm it te d t he rev ie win g J ud ge to m od ify or rejectth e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s rep ort i n wh ol e o r in pa rt a fte r gi vi ng itdu e reg ard
an d the pre su m

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s. Inreac ti on to th e 2 00 5 B al lardop in io n, the Tax C ou rt r ev is edit s R ul es so
as to pro sp ect iv el y

pro vi de th e p art ie s a c op y of t he in it ia l re po rt o f th e Sp eci al Tria l Jud ge an d a ll ow the m to co m m en t o n t ha t re po rt b efo re i t was rev ie wedby a reg ul ar J ud ge . See Ru le 18 3 e ffec ti ve Sep te m be r 20 , 20 05 , andAm en dm en ts to Ru le s o f Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Tax Co urt, wi th ex pl an at ory
no te s. 1 25 T.C. 33 9, 3 42 -3 47 . The Co urt al so att em pt edto fin d i ni ti al co pi es of- 8 -

Sp eci al Trial Ju dg es ’ rep orts th atha d p rev io us ly beensubm it te d fo r rev ie w and ad op ti on . The i ni ti al rep orts whi chco ul d b e fo un d wer e th enserve d o n the pa rti es . The i ni ti al rep ort o f Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e Gol db erg was s erv edon pe ti ti on ers by an o rd er d at edAug us t 1 9, 2 00 5. 5 The Aug us t 1 9, 2 00 5, o rd er s ta te d: 5 The Supr em e Co urt d eci de d i n B al lardv. Co m m is si on er, 5 44 U.S. __ _ (2 00 5) , th atdra ft o pi ni on s s ub m it te d t o t he Ch ie f Ju dg e b y Sp eci al Trial Ju dg es un de r Ru le 18 3( b) of t he Co urt’s Ru le s o f Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e sh ou ldha ve be enav ai labl e to th e p art ie s. Fro m 19 83 un ti l i ss ua nc e o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on inBal lard , th is Co urt d idno t fi le th e draftop in io ns of S pe ci al Trial Ju dg es subm it te d u nd er Ru le 18 3( b) . In re tro sp ectan d c on si de rin g t he Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng , dra ft o pi ni on s wo ul d h av e b eenfil edan d in cl ud edinth e p ub li c fi le . Accor di ng ly, th e Co urt h as de ci de d t ha t ret ai ne d S pe ci al Trial Ju dg e draftop in io ns wil l b e fi le d a nd , th erea fte r, m ad e p ub li cl y av ai labl e. The Co urt re cen tl y

co nduc te d asea rch forret ai ne d c op ie s o f in it ia l draftop in io ns subm it te d b y Sp eci al Trial Ju dg es to th e Ch ie f Ju dg e und er Ru le 18 3( b) . A draftop in io n was ret ai ne d i n t he ab ov ecap ti on edcas es inwhi cha Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s dr aftop in io n was ad op te d u nd er the pro cedur es of Rul e 1 83 (b ). The for eg oi ng co ns id ered , itis ORDERED th atth e Cl erkof t he Co urt fi le a co py of th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s dr aftop in io n s ub m itte d t o t he Ch ie f Ju dg e un de r Ru le 18 3( b) an d s erv e th e sa m e o n the pa rti es to th es e cas es , an d i t i s fu rth er ORDERED th atth e d eci si on s i n t he se cas es are fi na l u nd er (co nt in ue d...)- 9 -

Pet it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns th atare n ow u nd er co ns id erat io n wer e fi le d a lm os t 8 y ears aft er p et it io ne rs fir stlea rn edof t he Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l re po rt a nd
ov er 1 6 years a fte r th e d eci si on s h adbe co m e fi na l. Pet it io ne rs all eg e th ataft er
rece iv in g the Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l re po rt i n Au gu st20 05 th ey be ga n
ex pl or in g a ll op ti on s t o o bt ai n re pr es en ta ti on forth e p ur po se of v acat in g t he de ci si on s tha t h adbe enen te redin19 96 . Peti ti on ers st at e th atth ey co nt act ed
nu m ero us att orne y s, fo un da ti on s, Se na to rs , andCo ng res sm eninth ei r effo rt, b utto
no av ai l. The y

all eg e th atitwas n otun ti l l at e in 20 12 th atth ey were ab le to ob ta in th ei r cu rren t co un se l wh o fi le d the m ot io ns no w un de r co ns id erat io n i n J ul y 20 13
. Res po nd en t o pp os es pe ti ti on ers ’ m ot io ns on th e g ro un ds th atth e Co urt i s witho utjuri sd ic ti on to gra ntpe ti ti on ers ’ m ot io ns to va cat e th e d eci si on s tha t h av e lo ng be enfin al an d tha t the op in io n o f th e Co urt re po rte d a t T.C. Me m o. 1 99 6- 45 7 is a co rrec t ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts . Dis cu ss io n Ru le 16 2 p ro vi de s tha t an y m ot io n t o v acat e a d eci si on sh al l b e fi le d wi th in 30 da y s af

te r th e d eci si on is en te red , un le ss th e Co urt o th erwi se pe rm it s. Pet it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns were n otfil edwithi n 3 0 d ay s. Inord er fo r pe ti ti on ers ’
(...co nt inue d) 5 I.R.C. s ect io n 7 48 1 a ndrem ai n i n fu ll for ce an d e ffec t.- 10 -

pr op os edm ot io ns to va cat e to be co ns id ered , Rul e 1 62 requi redpe ti ti on ers to fil e
m ot io ns forlea ve to fil e th ei r m ot io ns to va cat e. The g ran ti ng of s uc h m ot io ns li es withi n the so un d d is cret io n o f th e Co urt. St ewartv. Co m m is si on er, 1 27 T.C. at 11 1- 11 2; see als o Dro bn y v. Co m m is si on er, 1 13 F.3d67 0, 6 77 (7th C ir. 1 99 7) , aff’g T.C. Me m o. 1 99 5- 20 9. Bu t b efo re we ca n e xe rci se an y di sc ret io n, we m

us t ha ve juri sd ic ti on . Whe n juris di ct io n i s i n i ss ue , itis cle ar tha t we h av e juri sd ic ti on to de ci de whe th er we h av e juri sd ic ti on . Stewa rt v . Commis si on er, 1 27 T.C. at 1 12 . Thu s,
we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er we h av e juri sd ic ti on to gra ntth e reque st edrel ie f. As we s ta te d i n S te wart :

Inord er fo r us to co ns id er the subs tant iv e m eri ts of p et it io ne r’s m ot io n fo r le av e, we m

us t s ti ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on . Excep t fo r ve ry li mit edex cep ti on s, n on e o f whi chap pl ie s h ere, thi s C ou rt l ack s juri sd ic ti on on ce a d eci si on be co m es fin al withi n t he m ean in g o f se ct io n 7 48 1. Ab at ti v. Co m m is si on er, 8 59 F.2d11 5, 1 17 -1 18 (9th Ci r. 19 88 ), affg . 86 T.C. 13 19 (19 86 ); Las ky v. Co m m is si on er, 2 35 F.2 d 9 7, 9 8 (9 th Cir . 19 56 ), affd . 35 2 U.S. 1 02 7 (1 95 7) . As rel ev an t he re, a d eci si on of the Tax C ou rt b eco m es fin al “ Upo n t he ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e al lo wedfor

fil in g ano ti ce o f ap pe al , if n o s uc h n ot ic e h as be endu ly file d wi th in su chti m e”. Sec . 74 81 (a)( 1) . Sect io n 7 48 3 pr ov id es th ata no ti ce o f ap pe al m ay be fil edwithi n 9 0 d ay s af te r a de ci si on is en te red . As pr ev io us ly exp la in ed , an o rd er o f di sm is sa l fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n i s treat edas t he Co urt’s d eci si on . Id . (fn . ref. o m it te d) . Sect io n 7 48 1 p ro vi de s fo r th e fi na li ty of a Tax Co urt de ci si on up on th e ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r ap pe al . There were n o app eal s i n- 11 -

th es e cas es . Our jur is di ct io n i n acas e whe re o urpre vi ou s d eci si on ha s b eco m e fin al is sev erel y

li m it edby bot h s ta tu te an d c as el aw. As a g en eral rul e, th e fi na li ty of a d eci si onis ab so lu te . See Ab at ti v. Co m m is si on er, 8 6 T.C. at13 23 . There are v ery few ex cep ti on s. Ci ne m a ‘84 v. Co m m is si on er, 1 22 T.C. 26 4 (2 00 4) , aff’d, 4 12 F.3d36 6 (2 d C ir. 2 00 5) . One
ex cep ti on is wher e th ere was a frau d o n the co urt. See Tos can o v . Comm is si on er, 44 1 F .2d93 0 (9 thCir . 19 71 ), va cat in g 5 2 T.C. 2 95 (19 69 ); Ke nn er v . Co m m is si on er, 3 87 F.2d68 9 (7 th Cir . 19 68 ); C in em a ‘84 v. Co m mis si on er, 1 22 T.C. at 2 70 , 27 1; Taub v. Co m m is si on er, 6 4 T.C. 7 41 , 75 1 (1 97 5) , aff’d wit ho ut publ is he d o pi ni on , 53 8 F .2d31 4 (2 d C ir. 1 97 6) ; s ee al so Sen at e Rea lty Co rp . v. Co m m is si on er, 5 11 F.2d92 9 (2 d C ir. 1 97 5) . W e h av e al so va cat edanot he rwis e fin al de ci si on ina si tu at io n wh ere t he Co urt h adne ve r acqui redjuri sd ic ti on to
m ak e a d eci si on . See Ab el es v. Co m m is si on er, 9 0 T.C. 1 03 (19 88 ); a cco rdSev en W . Ent ers ., Inc . & Subs . v. Co m m is si on er, 7 23 F.3d85 7 (7 thCir . 20 13 ), va cat in g
an d re m an di ng 13 6 T.C. 5 39 (20 11 ); B il li ng sl ey v. Co m mis si on er, 8 68 F.2d10 81 , 10 84 -1 08 5 (9 th Cir . 19 89 ); B ran no n’s o f Sh awn ee, In c. v. Co m m is si on er, 6 9 T.C. 99 9, 1 00 2 (1 97 8) . W e m ay als o “ co rrec t” a fi na l d eci si on wher e a cl eri cal erro r in th e d eci si on is di sc ov eredaft er the de ci si on ha s b eco m e fi na l. Mi ch ael s v . Co m m is si on er, 1 44 F.3d49 5 (7 th Cir . 19 98 ), aff’g T.C. Me m o. 1 99 5- 29 4. Here it- 12 -

is cle ar tha t the re was ne ithe r frau d o n t he Co urt n or cle ric al erro r an d t ha t we h ad juri sd ic ti on forpu rp os es of d eci di ng whet he r to di sm is s p et it io ne rs ’ cas es forlac k of juri sd ic ti on . Peti ti on ers m ak e n o a rg um en t t o t he co nt rary. InCin em a ‘84 we no te d tha t the Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Si xth C irc ui t h ad pr ev io us ly hel d tha t a f

in al de ci si on of t he Tax C ou rt c ou ldbe va cat edin si tu at io ns in vo lv in g m

utua l m is ta ke , see Reo Mo to rs , Inc . v. Co m m is si on er, 2 19 F.2 d 6 10 (6t h C ir. 1 95 5) , bu t tha t i n am or e rec en t ca se , Harb ol d v . Comm is si on er, 51 F.3d61 8, 6 22 (6t h C ir. 1 99 5) , th e Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Si xt h C irc ui t h el d th atReo Mo to rs , Inc . was o ve rru le d b y th e Supr em e Co urt i n Las ky v. Co m m is si on er, 3 52 U.S. 10 27 (19 57 ), an d t ha t the Co urt wo ul d n o l on ge r fo ll ow th e rat io na le of R eo Mo to rs , Inc ., Cin em a ‘84 v. Co m mis si on er, 1 22 T.C. at 2 70 , 27 1. InW ap ni ck

v. Co m m is si on er, 3 65 F.3d13 1, 1 32 (2dCir . 20 04 ), th e co urt
ex pl ai ne d the fin al ity

of Tax Co urt d eci si on s, s ta ti ng : [S]ecti on 74 81 of t he Int ern al Rev enue Co de pro vi de s tha t a d eci si on of th e Tax Co urt b eco m es fin al “ [u ]pon th e ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e al lo wedforfil in g ape ti ti on forcert io rari , if the de ci si on of t he Tax Co urt h as be enaffi rm edor t he ap pe al di sm is se d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s Co urt o f App eal s an d n o p et it io n fo r certi or ari ha s b eendu ly file d.” 26 U.S.C. § 7 48 1( a)(2 )(A). Inco ns id eri ng th e p red eces so r to sec ti on 74 81 , th e Supr em e Co urt ru le d t ha t af te r anord er o f th e Tax Co urt ha s b eco m e fi na l the “ st atut e d ep riv es us of ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e cas e.” R. Si m

ps on & Co . v. Co m

m is si on er, 3 21 U.S. 22 5, 2 30- 13 -

(1 94 4) ; s ee al so Lasky

v. Co m m is si on er, 2 35 F.2d97 , 99 (9t h C ir. 19 56 ). The C ou rt r eco gn iz edth at“ th e u su al rul es of l aw ap pl ic ab le in co urt p ro cedur e m

us t b e ch an ge d” to ach ie ve th e fi na li ty need edin th e rea lm of t ax de ci si on s. See Sim ps on , 32 1 U.S. at22 8. The rul e o f fi na li ty can re su ltineit he r th e ta xp ay er o r th e Co m m is si on er re cei vi ng a b en efi t tha t wo ul d n otha ve be enav ai labl e h adanerro r be enco rrec te d b efo re a de ci si on be cam e fi na l. 6 W e d o n otha ve equi tabl e p owe r to ex pa ndou r juri sd ic ti on . See Co m m is si on er v . McCo y , 48 4 U.S. 3 (19 87 ); Dro bn y v. Co m m is si on er, 1 13 F.3d 67 0 (7 thCir . 19 97 ); Woo ds v. Co m m is si on er, 9 2 T.C. 7 76 , 78 4 (1 98 9) . As we st at edinCin em a ‘84 v. Co m m is si on er, 1 22 T.C. at 2 71 : Fi na ll y , m ov an t al le ge s tha t the Co urt’s af firm an ce o f res po nd en t’s de te rm in at io ns crea te d awhi ps aw th at“ is pa te nt ly unr eas on ab le , un fai r, un jus t an d i ne qu it ab le .” W e are wil li ng to ass um e th atth is is al so co rrec t. Bu t the factis th atno ne of t he se all eg at io ns , st an di ng al on e o r to ge th er, co ns ti tu te a frau d o n t he Co urt o r ot he r va li d re as on fo r va cat in g afin al de ci si on of t hi s C ou rt. [F n. re f. om it te d.] Whe n aTax C ourt d eci si on be co m es fin al an d t he re i s n o juris di ct io n i n a ny ot he r Fed eral co urt, l ackof ju ris di ct io n t ru m ps equi ty. Fo r ex am

pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. Dal m , 49 4 U.S. 5 96 (19 90 ), th e ta xp ay er, wh o h adbe enth e adm in is tra tri x o f he r fo rm er em pl oyer’s est at e, rece iv edsubs tant ia l p aym en ts fro m

Fo r a d is cu ss io n o f th e h ard sh ip s tha t can re su ltfro m th e ru le s g ov ern in g 6 fin al ity , see Est at e o f Bai ll y v. Co m m is si on er, 8 1 T.C. 9 49 , 95 5 n .10 (19 83 ).- 14 -

th e d ecea se d e m

pl oyer’s bro th er. Tho se pa ym en ts were re po rte d o n aFed eral gi ft ta x re turn , andth e g ifttax was p ai d b y th e ta xp ay er. Subs eque nt ly, th e IRS
ex am in edth e ta xp ay er’s i nc om e ta x re tu rnforth e y ear i n wh ic h s he rece iv edth e pa ym en ts an d d et erm in edth atth e p aym en ts were t ax ab le in co m e rat he r th angi fts
. The tax pa y er p et it io ne d thi s C ou rt, andwe de ci de d tha t the pa ym en ts were t ax ab le in co m e. Subs eque nt ly, th e ta xp ay er fi le d acla im forrefu ndof the gi ft t ax . The IRS d en ie d the cla im . In s ub se qu en t l it ig at io n o ve r th e err on eo us ly pai d g ifttax , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the st atut e d ep riv edth e Dis tri ctCo urt of juri sd ic ti on ov er the act io n fo r refu ndof t he gi ft t ax , no ti ng th at“ Dalm do es no t
se ekto in vo ke equi tabl e rec oupm en t i n d et erm in in g h er i nc om e ta x l iabi li ty; sh e ha s al read y

li ti ga te d tha t l iabi li ty [in t he Tax C ou rt] witho utrai si ng a cl ai m of equi tabl e rec oupm en t an d i s fo recl os edfro m rel it ig at in g i t n ow.” Dal m , 49 4 U.S. at60 6. Here , as i n Dal m , ou r de ci si on s h av e b eco m e fi na l. As ares ul t, we d o n ot ha ve juri sd ic ti on to m od ify the de ci si on s. Rec en tl y , th e Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Sev en th Cir cu itad dr es se d t he is su e of ou r juri sd ic ti onto va cat e d eci si on s tha t h adbe co m e fi na l wh ere t he de ci si on s
co nt ai ne d c le ric al erro rs . In Se ve n W. Ente rs ., Inc . & Subs . v. Co m m is si on er, 7 23 F.3 d 8 57 , 86 2 (7 th Cir . 20 13 ), th e Co urt o f App eal s h el d t ha t the Tax C ourt h adno juri sd ic ti on to va cat e anin co rrec t d eci si on th atha d b eco m e fi na l, s tati ng :- 15 -

Ourcas e la w m ak es itcle ar tha t, ab se nta frau d t ha t i nf ect edth e Tax Co urt’s d eci si on , th e Tax Co urt ca nn otva cat e a d eci si on th atha s be co m e fi na l. Here , th e Tax Co urt i ss ue d i ts de ci si on s o n J un e 8 , and th os e d eci si on s b ecame fin al on Sep te m be r 6, 2 01 1. Th e Co m m is si on er d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t the Ju ne 8 d eci si on s wer e th e res ul t o f frau d. Co ns eque nt ly, th e Tax Co urt d idno t h av e th e au th or ity to va cat e th os e d eci si on s. In st ead , as was do ne inMi ch ael s, th e Tax Co urt s ho ul d h av e co rrec te d t he in it ia l d eci si on s wi th ou t va cat in g the m . Fi na ll y , bo th pe ti ti on ers an d re sp on de ntrel y on anun rep orte d c as e d eci de d by the Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Fi fth Cir cu it , to whi chth es e cas es are ap pe al ab le
. See Hi la l v . Comm is si on er, 2 37 Fed . App x. 9 32 (5th C ir. 2 00 7)
. In d en y in g 7 Hil al ’s m ot io n t o v acat e a Tax Co urt d eci si on wher e th e m ot io n was fil edalm os t two y ears aft er the de ci si on be cam e fi na l, the Co urt o f App eal s s ta te d: As a g en eral rul e, on ce a d eci si on of the tax co urt b eco m es fin al , th e ta x c ou rt l ack s juris di ct io n t o v acat e th atde ci si on . See, e.g ., Dav enpo rt R ecyclin g As so cs . v. Co m m ’r, 22 0 F .3d12 55 , 12 59 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Co urts ha ve m ad e ex cep ti on s t o the fin al ity rul e in on ly thre e si tu at io ns . Id. The se ex cep ti on s t o t he ge ne ral rul e “ m us t b e co ns tru ednarro wly” so t ha t the fin al ity of ju dg m en ts is pre se rv ed . Id. The fir stex cep ti on to th e fi na li ty rule is when th e ta x c ourt m ay ha ve or ig in al ly lack edjuri sd ic ti on to en te r a fi na l d eci si on . Bil li ng sl ey v. Co m m ’r, 86 8 F .2d10 81 , 10 84 -8 5 (9 th Cir . 19 89 ). The ra ti on al e fo r th is ex cep ti onis th atitwou ld“bo rd er o n abs ur di ty” to pre ve ntth e ta x Fi fth Cir cu itRu le 47 .5.4 pro vi de s tha t, ex cep t und er l im it edcir cu m st an ces 7 no t re le va nthe re, unp ub li sh edop in io ns is su edon or a fte r Janu ary 1, 1 99 6, ar e n ot pr eced en t. Ho wev er, anunpubl is he d o pi ni on is su edaft er J anua ry 1, 2 00 7, m ay

be ci te d p ur su an t t o F ed . R. App . P. 32 .1(a ).- 16 -

co urt o n juris di ct io na l g ro un ds fro m va cat in g ade ci si on itlac ke d juri sd ic ti on to en te r in th e fi rs t p la ce. Id . at 1 08 5. So m e ci rcu it s al so al lo w an e xc ep ti on to th e fi na li ty rule when th ere i s a f rau d upo n t he co urt. See , e.g., Dro bn y

v. Co m m ’r, 11 3 F .3d67 0, 6 77 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ). The thi rdpo ss ib le ex cep ti onto th e fi na li ty rule is form utua l m is ta ke , wher e th e ta x c ou rt d eci si on was p red ic at edonth e p art ie s’ st ip ul at io n, an d b ot h the go ve rn m en t an d t he tax pa y er co nc ed e th ey m is ta ke nl y

en te redin to th e st ip ul at io n. Ab at ti v. Co m m ’r, 85 9 F .2d 11 5, 1 18 (9t h C ir. 1 98 8) . The v al id ity of t hi s thi rdex cep ti on is qu es ti on ab le . See, e.g ., Harbo ld , 51 F.3dat 6 22 ; Swa ll v. Co m m ’r, 12 2 F .2d32 4, 3 24 (9t h C ir. 1 94 1) . The t ax co urt l ack s juris di ct io n t o va cat e it s d eci si on on othe r gr ou nd s, i nc lu di ng ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce, anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in th e la w, andex cu sabl e n eg le ct . Ken ne r v. C omm ’r, 38 7 F .2d68 9, 6 90 -9 1 (7 th Cir . 19 68 ); To sc an o v . Co m m ’r, 44 1 F .2d93 0, 9 32 (9t h C ir. 1 97 1)
. Hil al v. Co m

m is si on er, 2 37 Fed . App x. at93 3- 93 4. Non e o f th e rec og ni zedex cep ti on s t o fi na li ty is p res en t h ere. We had juri sd ic ti on in19 96 to de ci de th e que st io n o f ou r juri sd ic ti onan d t o g ran t
res po nd en t’s o rig in al m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. In de ed , di sm is sa l fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n was als o the rem edy pe ti ti on ers so ug ht , alb ei t fo r di ffer en t
reas on s tha n re sp on de nt . There is no all eg at io n o r ev id en ce o f frau d o n the Co urt. Fi na ll y , th ere i s n o a ll eg at io n o r ev id en ce o f m utua l m is ta ke or c le ric al erro r. Pet it io ne rs , nev erthe le ss , arg ue th atwe sh ou ldov erri de th e ab ov e pr eced en ts by app lying rul e 6 0( b) of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, 8 Fed . R. Civ . P. 60 (b ) pr ov id es , inpa rt: 8 (co nt in ue d...)- 17 -

sp eci fic al ly, ru le 60 (b )(4 ) an d (6 ). Parag rap h (c ) requi res th atm ot io ns pu rs ua ntto pa rag rap h (b )(4 ) an d (6 ) sh al l “be m ad e wit hi n areas on ab le ti m e”. Our Ru le 1(b ) pr ov id es th atwher e th ere i s n o app li cab le rul e, we m ay gi ve “ weig htto th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e to th e ex te ntth atth ey are s ui tabl y

ad ap tabl e to go ve rn th e m at te r atha nd .” Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e al lo ws fo r rel ie f fro m a jud gm en t tha t i s v oi d. A jud gm en t tha t was m ad e b y a co urt tha t was witho ut (...co nt inue d) 8 (b ) Gro un ds forRel ie f fro m a Fi na l J ud gm en t, Ord er, o r Pro ceed in g. Onm ot io n a ndjus t t erm s, the co urt m ay rel ie ve a pa rty or i ts leg al rep res en tati ve fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s: (1 ) m is ta ke , in adve rte nc e, su rp ris e, orex cu sabl e n eg le ct ; (2 ) ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce tha t, wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e, co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredinti m e to m ov e fo r a n ew tr ia l un de r Ru le 59 (b ); (3 ) frau d (wh ethe r pr ev io us ly call edin tri ns ic or e xt rin si c), m is rep res en ta ti on , or m is co nduc t b y anop po si ng pa rty; (4 ) th e jud gm en t i s v oi d; (5 ) th e jud gm en t h as be ensat is fie d, re le as ed , or d is ch arg ed ; i t is ba se d o n a n e arl ie r jud gm en t tha t h as be enrev ers edor va cat ed ; o r ap pl y in g i t p ro sp ect iv el y is no lo ng er equi tabl e; or (6 ) an y othe r rea so n t ha t ju st ifi es rel ie f.- 18 -

juri sd ic ti on is a vo idjud gm en t. See Bil li ng sl ey v. Co m m is si on er, 8 68 F.2d10 81 (9 th Cir . 19 89 ); Ab el es v. Co m m is si on er, 9 0 T.C. 1 03 (19 88 ). As p rev io us ly
ex pl ai ne d, a Tax Co urt d eci si on is co ns id eredvo idwhen th e Co urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on to m ak e th e d eci si on . Suc h avo idde ci si oncanbe va cat ed . Howev er,
as als o p rev io us ly exp la in ed , bec au se pe ti ti on ers fil edpe ti ti on s, we h ad juri sd ic ti on to de ci de ou r juri sd ic ti on , whi chis whatwe di d i n d is m is si ng th es e
cas es in19 96
. Pet it io ne rs als o a ll eg e th atbe cau se th ey di d n otrece iv e n ot ic e o f th e Sp eci al Tria l Jud ge ’s in it ia l re po rt i n t im e to ti m el y ap pe al , th ey

were d ep riv edof due pr oc es s an d the de ci si on s ar e v oi d. Pe ti ti on ers cit e n o c as es wher e anall eg eddu e pr oc es s v io la ti on was g ro un ds forva cat in g afin al Tax C ou rt d eci si on . Ind eed , a lo ng li ne of p rev io us ly cite d c as es sev erel y res tri ct s o urjuri sd ic ti on to va cat e a fin al de ci si on to th e n arro w cir cu m st an ces pre vi ou sl y st at ed
. 9
Pet it io ne rs cit e n o c as es th atha ve he ldth atth e fai lu re t o p ro vi de th e in it ia l 9 Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s rep ort was a vi ol at io n o f du e p ro ces s. Inth is reg ard , we no te th atou r de ci si on inSn ow v . Comm is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 1 99 6- 45 7, d idno t de pr iv e p et it io ne rs of aforum inwhi chto co nt es t the ir t ax li ab il it ie s. Inth at op in io n we a dv is edpe ti ti on ers as f ol lo ws: Pet it io ne rs are n otwitho utreco ur se . Becau se th ey pa idth e de fic ie nc ie s, i nt eres t, an d p en al ti es inful l o n M ay 1, 1 99 5, the ti m e fo r fi li ng a cl ai m

forrefundha s n oty etrun . Sec. 6 51 1( a). If a t im el y refu ndcla im

is di sa ll owe d b y

res po nd en t, p et it io ne rs co ul d fi le a su it (co nt in ue d...)- 19 -

Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e al lo ws re li ef fo r “ an y ot he r rea so n tha t ju st ifi es rel ie f” fro m th e o pe rat io n o f th e jud gm en t. Ho wev er, th e p rev io us ly cite d aut ho rit ie s n arro wly res tri ctth e “ reas on s” th atcanbe us edto
ov erri de th e fi na li ty of Tax Co urt d eci si on s, an d n on e o f th os e rea so ns ex is ts he re. Fi na ll y , eve n i f we h adjuri sd ic ti on to ex erci se di sc ret io n t o v acat e und er pa rag rap h (b )(4 ) or

(6) , par ag rap h (c ) requi res th atsu chm ot io ns be m ad e wit hi n a
reas on ab le ti m e. Pet it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns were m ad e al m os t 8 y ears aft er p et it io ne rs
rece iv edou r Aug us t 1 9, 2 00 5, o rd er an d aco py of th e Sp eci al Trial Ju dg e’s in it ia l rep ort. Whil e p et it io ne rs all eg e th atth ey imm ed ia te ly beg ansee ki ng ass is tanc e

(...co nt inue d) 9 fo r refu ndinth e U.S. Dis tri ctCo urt o r th e U.S. Co urt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s an d thu s l it ig at e th e m eri ts of t he ir t ax li ab il it ie s fo r th e y ears in qu es ti on . [Id., s li p o p. at13 n.2 .] As fa r as we kn ow fr om

th e rec or d, p et it io ne rs ha ve no t fi le d c la im s fo r refu nd . It th eref or e ap pe ars th atpe ti ti on ers m ay no w be b arre d b y

sec . 65 11 (a) fr om ob ta in in g a ny refun ds forth e y ears 19 87 an d 1 99 0, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r we were to gra ntth ei r cu rren t m ot io ns . See s ec. 6 51 1( a). As the Supr em e Co urt s tate d i n Uni te d S tate s v . Dalm , 49 4 U.S. 5 96 , 60 2 (1 99 0) , “un le ss a cl ai m forrefundof a ta x h as be enfil edwithi n the ti m e li m it s i m po se d b y § 6 51 1( a), a s ui t fo r refu nd , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e ta x i s al le ge d t o h av e b een‘ erro ne ou sl y ,’ ‘ il le ga ll y ,’ or ‘wro ng fu ll y

co ll ect ed ,’ §§ 13 46 (a)( 1) , 74 22 (a), m ay no t b e m ai nt ai ne d i n a ny co urt.”- 20 -

fro m va rio us qu art ers , we fin d thi s ex pl an at io n i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh th atth ei r
m ot io ns were fi le d wi th in a reas on ab le ti m e as requi redby parag rap h (c ). 1 0 Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we wi ll de ny pet it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns forleave to fil e
m ot io ns to va cat e. App ro pr ia te ord ers wil l b e is su ed
.

As ex pl ai ne d s up ra n ot e 9 , th e p as sa ge of t im e can pro ve fat al to rel ie f 1 0 ev enif t ax es were erro ne ou sl y co ll ect ed
. Inpe ti ti on ers ’ pr op os edm ot io ns to va cat e th ey askth is Co urt t o o rd er the refu ndof t he tax de fic ie nc ie s tha t the y pa idon May 1, 19 95 . W e h av e h el d t ha t we ha ve no juri sd ic ti on ov er the de fic ie nc y de te rm in at io ns inth es e cas es . Ind eed , we wou ldha ve lac ke d juris di ct io n e ve n i f we h adgra nt edpe ti ti on ers ’ m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Lack in g juris di ct io n o ve r th e d efi ci en ci es , we ha ve no po wer t o o rd er a re fund . See s ec. 6 21 3( a), wh ic h p ro vi de s i n p ert in en t pa rt: “ The Tax C ou rt s ha ll ha ve no juri sd ic ti on to en joi n a ny acti on or p ro ceed in g orord er an y

refu ndun de r th is subs ect io n u nl es s a t im el y pe ti ti on for

a red et erm in at io n o f th e d efi ci en cy ha s b eenfil edan d t he n o nl y inres pe ctof t he de fic ie nc y

th atis th e subjec t o f su chpe ti ti on .”