Back three years ago I didn’t say then-Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda was envious of the lifestyle of the late Richard J. Spizzirri and his bevy of ladies and multiple dwellings, but he does seem just a shade wistful as he slams the Glasshouse door on the late Rich’s ex’r. The ex’r wants to reopen the record to put in the estate’s additional (deductible) accounting, admins, and legal fees after 11 Cir blew up their appeal from Judge Urda’s T. C. Memo.

See my blogpost “Living the Dream,” 2/28/23 for Judge Scholar Pat’s take on the late Rich’s saga.

The timeline is key here. 11 Cir affirms, but holds the mandate (that’s formally sending back the case to Tax Court to enter decision and clean up anything 11 Cir told them to do). Meantime, the ex’r moves to remand to Tax Court and stay further appellate proceedings to put in for the aforesaid costs and fees. 11 Cir says no, without opinion, and remands. 

So ex’r now moves in Tax Court to reopen the record to put on same before Tax Court enters the decision.

Nope, says Judge Scholar Pat. While Rule 156 provides for reopener to deal with this stuff, 11 Cir has slammed that door. Yes, the ex’r moved two (count ’em, two) days before the Section 7481 finality clock ran out, so Tax Court has jurisdiction.

“The Estate here asked the Eleventh Circuit for a remand to this Court for redetermination of additional administrative expenses incurred after trial, which is the same relief that it now seeks from us. The Eleventh Circuit denied this motion and then issued a formal mandate. ‘When the [Eleventh] Circuit denied [the Estate’s] appellate motion, [the Estate’s] claim for [expenses]—in connection both with appellate and trial-level proceedings—was litigated to completion, and the law of the case doctrine precludes our reconsidering [the Estate’s] claim’ in its motion. Mazzei, T.C. Memo. 2022-43, at *8–9; see also Pollei, 94 T.C. at 608 (‘If petitioners had not requested the Court of Appeals for relief on the . . . issue at the trial level, it would then appear that the matter would be within our authority for consideration and decision.’).” Order, at pp. 2-3.

For the Mazzei story, see my blogpost “I Got It Right – Part Deux,” 5/2/22.