Holland v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 7115-20

CourtUnited States Tax Court
Writing for the CourtAlbert G. Lauber, Judge.
PartiesBERNARD D. HOLLAND, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Number7115-20
Decision Date10 August 2022

BERNARD D. HOLLAND, Petitioner
v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

No. 7115-20

United States Tax Court

August 10, 2022


ORDER

Albert G. Lauber, Judge.

On November 23, 2021, pursuant to the Court's Opinion (T.C. Memo. 2021-129), we entered decision and closed this case. Petitioner appealed, and on July 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its mandate affirming our decision.

On July 27, 2022, petitioner filed two documents. Petitioner titled the first document "Motion For An Extension of Time To File The Petition For Rehearing In Banc"; it was entered on the docket as a "Motion for Extension of Time." Petitioner titled the second document "Motion to Recall the Mandate"; it was entered on the docket as a "Motion to Amend Order."

On August 1, 2022, we struck both motions from the record of this case because both were "directed to the Fourth Circuit, and neither suggests any relief that this Court could possibly grant." En banc proceedings are held at the appellate level, not in this Court. The Fourth Circuit issued the mandate, not this Court.

On August 5, 2022, petitioner filed a document titled "Motion for Reconsideration of The Recently Filed Motions In The Above Captioned Matter," which was entered on the docket as a "Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161." Petitioner argues that our August 1 order addressed the wrong motions. He is mistaken: Our order addressed the motions that he filed, referring to them by the captions under which they were entered on the docket. The captions petitioner proposed when submitting the documents do not exist in our filing system, because our Court does not consider motions to recall a mandate or to extend the deadline for petitioning for rehearing en banc.

We will deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. We considered the motions he filed, and we appropriately struck them from the record because this case is closed and his motions did not request any relief that we could possibly grant. In consideration of the foregoing, it is

1

ORDERED the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed August 5, 2022, is denied.

2

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT