Opinion
5882-21
08-22-2023
ANASTASIOS M. SMALIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Travis A. Greaves, Judge
On July 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in this case on the ground that petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish that he had been issued a notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. On August 16, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Orderunder Rule 161. Petitioner's motion is more properly viewed as a Motion to Vacate or Revise Decision under Rule 162, thus the Court will recharacterize petitioner's motion. For the reasons set forth below, we deny petitioner's motion.
Petitioner's motion is stylized as a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order. Petitioner's motion was timely made and therefore, we refer to this motion as Motion for Reconsideration of Order.
Unless otherwise indicated, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 162 lies within the Court's discretion. See Kun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-273, slip op. at 5, aff'd, 157 Fed.Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 162 authorizes a party to file a motion to vacate or revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit. Motions to vacate or revise a decision generally are not granted without a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief. See Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1000-01 (1978); Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-204, at *8, aff'd, 775 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2015). A motion under Rule 162 is not the appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected legal arguments. See Stoody v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 643, 644 (1977).
In his motion, petitioner does not point to unusual circumstances or substantial error that would warrant vacatur. Rather, petitioner merely revisits his previously considered argument that the Court should review respondent's alleged failure to issue a notice of deficiency or notice of determination. Petitioner fails to attach any notices sufficient to confer jurisdiction to his motion and fails to allege any other facts that could indicate jurisdiction. We previously weighed and considered petitioner's argument regarding jurisdiction, and his motion is not the appropriate forum to renew this rejected argument. Petitioner's motion fails to satisfy the high standard for vacating an order of this Court, and we will deny petitioner's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Order under Rule 161is recharacterized as a Motion to Vacate or Revise Decision under Rule 162. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate or Revise Decision under Rule 162filed August 16, 2023, is denied.