Opinion
24895-22
09-29-2023
DANIELLE BITON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On July 24, 2023, the Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that petitioner did not demonstrate that any notice of deficiency was issued to her, or that respondent had made any other determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On September 19, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order. Thereafter, on September 27, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Rehearing. To the extent the Court can understand petitioner's motions, petitioner appears to make allegations relating to what she believes are the merits of her case. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to petitioner's motions.
Unless the Court permits otherwise, a motion to reconsider or to vacate generally must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the Court's decision. See Rules 161 and 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The disposition of a motion to vacate rests within this Court's discretion. See, e.g., Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986). A motion to reconsider or to vacate typically is not granted in the absence of substantial error or unusual circumstances, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185 (2008); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). None of those factors appear present in this case. The Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner failed to identify or provide any specific notice on which jurisdiction in this case could be based. Petitioner's motions do not persuade us otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Order is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Rehearing is denied.