An old bugbear of mine is the lack of a single court with nationwide jurisdiction to which appeals from Tax Court may be taken, and whose decisions must be followed by Tax Court. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T. C. 745 (1970), aff’d on o/grds 445 F. 2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971) initially confines appellants to the decisional law of the Circuit wherein Tax Court had jurisdiction over the taxpayer when the case was tried (absent contrary agreement, which happens so rarely as to be negligible).

So STJ Daniel A. (“Yuda”) Guy can’t help out poor confused, stressed and traumatized Johnny Steven Vallejo, because Johnny can’t claim fraud and that’s all Ninth Circuit will allow to set aside the stipulated decision Johnny entered into. See my blogpost ‘Confused, Stressed and Traumatized”, 4/9/13.

But had Johnny Steven quitted the Golden State, he might have done better.

Ch STJ Peter Panuthos has a different take in Francisco & Maria Goncalves, Docket No. 9831-10S, a designated hitter filed 5/17/13.

Francisco and Maria lived in the Bay State.

“In addition to fraud on the Court, there are some other narrow exceptions to finality. Thus, this Court and some Courts of Appeals have ruled that this Court may vacate a final decision if that decision is shown to be void, or a legal nullity, for lack of jurisdiction over either the subject matter or the party. See Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084-1085 (9th Cir. 1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 105-106 (1988); Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). We also have authority to correct a clerical error discovered after the decision has become final. Michaels v. Commissioner, 144 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 1998), af[‘g T.C. Memo. 1995-294; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Court is satisfied that a clerical error was made by the Court, and was discovered after the decision in this case became final. Thus, we will vacate the Order of Dismissal and Decision entered June 30, 2011.” Order, at p. 2.

Here the Court had the wrong address for the petitioners, so all the notices went astray.

Time for one size fits all.

Not, not another single parent of a disabled child taking on the IRS, whose counsel seemed not to be current on the law (see my blogpost “Read the Law”, 9/12/11), but the case of a Tax Court admittee  who needs that admonition.

 It’s Herb Vest, Docket No. 30510-12, filed 5/17/13, Ch. J. Colvin at the controls.

Herb timely filed his petition, but before he did that he filed a petition in bankruptcy and the automatic stay was still in effect.

So IRS moved to dismiss pursuant to 11 USC §362(8). “Petitioner opposes the granting of respondent’s motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the Fifth Circuit has held that a stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1) does not necessarily bar all proceedings; and (2)petitioner fears that he would be ‘statutorily barred from bringing a Petition for Redetermination in Tax Court’ if the case is dismissed rather than stayed.” Order, p. 1.

Ch Judge Colvin: “As an initial matter, petitioner–represented here by counsel admitted to practice before the Court–is reminded of the applicability of I.R.C. section 6213(f)(1), which provides that the running of time for filing a Tax Court petition is suspended during the time the automatic stay prohibits the filing of a Tax Court petition, and for 60 days thereafter. The automatic stay is lifted upon the earliest of (1) the date the bankruptcy case is closed, (2) the date the bankruptcy case is dismissed, or (3) the date a bankruptcy discharge is granted or denied. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2).” Order, at p. 1.

Ch Judge Colvin continues the lesson: “Second, and perhaps more directly to the point of petitioner’s opposition, is that respondent’s motion is being made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8), not 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1). In fact, 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) specifically prohibits ‘the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court’. Order, at pp. 1-2.

Petition dismissed.

Automatic admittee, ya think?

From IRS website 5/16/13, at http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Statement-on-Court-Ruling-Related-to-Return-Preparers:

“Fee amounts collected for scheduled registered tax return preparer test appointments canceled due to the court ordered injunction are being refunded. Additionally, fees collected from return preparers who tested on or after January 18, 2013, the date the test was enjoined, are also being refunded. No additional refund or reimbursement requests related to registered tax return preparer regulation are being provided or considered at this time. E-mail notifications will be provided to those receiving refunds to explain the process. No action is necessary to receive the refund. A credit for the test fee will automatically be made to the account used to pay the fee. It is anticipated that all refunds will be processed by July 19, 2013.”