Four (count ’em, four) years ago last month Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves issued an order which tossed fraud chops on Brian D. Beland & Denae A. Beland, Docket No. 30241-15, filed 4/15/25 because IRS got the Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery after they showed the Form 4549 changeling to them. See my blogpost “Boss Hoss to the Rescue,” 3/1/21.

Well today, 9 Cir’s reversal of Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. causes Judge Tag Greaves to vacate the above referred to order resulting from the full dress T.C. For the Laidlaw reverseal, see my blogpost “Ya Feelin’ Lucky?” 4/2/22.

IRS is seeking to vacate the order granting partial summary J to Brian & Danae, tossing the fraud chop. Judge Tag Greaves says there’s no Tax Court Rule about vacacting an order; Rule 162 talks about decisions, and there isn’t one here, because the order only addresses fraud chops; the rest of the case is still up for grabs after a mere ten (count ’em, ten) years.

But FRCP  60(b)(6), brought in by Rule 1(b) provides an order can be vacated for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

Change in law (9 Cir) is good enough reason.

As for timeliness of IRS’ motion to vacate (only three years after Laidlaw reversal), “Golsen requires that we follow the Ninth Circuit’s Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc., regardless of whether this Court would reach the same conclusion. It would be a waste of judicial resources to stand by a legal conclusion that would be reversed on appeal. This change in controlling law is an unusual circumstance that justifies granting leave to file a motion to vacate and vacating our prior order.” Order, at p. 6.

Taishoff says Laidlaw was wrongly decided. The use of “assessed” in Section 6751(b) is unskillful drafting. An embalmed mistake is still a mistake.