Harper v. Comm'r , 94 T.C.M. 622 ( 2007 )

T.C. Memo. 2007-378
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DARRELL JOE HARPER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21616-06. Filed December 27, 2007.
Darrell Joe Harper, pro se.
R. Scott Shieldes, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: This matter is before us on petitioner’s
motion under Rule 1621 to vacate our order and decision entered
on November 14, 2007, in which we decided that there was a
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
- 2 -
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax due of $1,101 for
tax year 2004. The only issue remaining is whether petitioner
has shown that there are appropriate circumstances for vacating
or revising our decision. We hold that he has not, and therefore
we shall deny petitioner’s motion.
Background
At all times in this case, petitioner resided in Houston,
Texas.
During a hearing on October 24, 2007, the parties stipulated
that the determinations in a notice of deficiency that respondent
issued to petitioner on September 11, 2006, were correct.
According to the notice of deficiency, petitioner failed to
report and pay taxes on $43 of taxable wages and $8,580 of
unemployment compensation on his 2004 Federal income tax return,
resulting in a deficiency of $1,101 in petitioner’s Federal
income tax for 2004. At the hearing, petitioner conceded all
legal and factual issues in the case. The parties moved for
entry of a decision, and an order and decision sustaining
respondent’s determination of petitioner’s deficiency was
entered.
On November 28, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to vacate
our order and decision pursuant to Rule 162. Petitioner
apparently seeks to withdraw his concessions but offers no
specific guidance on which concessions he seeks to withdraw or a
- 3 -
cognizable reason for doing so. Petitioner’s arguments in
support of his motion are that he objects to how his tax dollars
are being used, and he feels that respondent is seeking the
amount of his deficiency for an improper purpose. Petitioner
offered no evidence that respondent has acted improperly in this
case.
Discussion
This Court applies a stringent standard when considering
whether to vacate a judgment entered into by consent of the
parties. We have upheld such agreements unless the moving party
shows lack of formal consent, fraud, mistake, or a similar
ground. Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320,
335 (1997), affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.
2000); Brewer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-10. Petitioner
has not argued that any of these or similar grounds are present
in this case. Furthermore, we are not inclined to allow
petitioner to withdraw his concessions where doing so will
prejudice respondent by increasing the cost of litigating this
case, particularly because petitioner conceded that respondent’s
determination was correct in order to avoid a trial. See Gale v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-54.
At this time we decline to impose sanctions under section
6673(a)(1). However, we warn petitioner that this Court is not
the appropriate forum for airing his personal grievances, and we
- 4 -
shall impose a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673(a)(1)
if petitioner continues to advance groundless arguments or files
additional motions to delay the final outcome of this case and
increase the cost of maintaining these proceedings.
Accordingly, we shall deny petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.