Emilio Torres Luque v. Cir

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-70145
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIO TORRES LUQUE; GABRIELA No. 23-70145 MEDINA, Tax Ct. No. 14962-10 Petitioners-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Emilio Torres Luque and Gabriela Medina appeal pro se from the Tax

Court’s order denying their motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 26

U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Abatti v. Comm’r, 859

F.2d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

vacate summary judgment because it lacked jurisdiction to vacate the decision after

it became final. See 26 U.S.C. § 7481(a)(2)(B) (providing that a Tax Court

decision becomes final “[u]pon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the decision

of the Tax Court has been affirmed or the appeal dismissed by the United States

Court of Appeals”); Manchester Grp. v. Comm’r, 113 F.3d 1087, 1088 & n.1 (9th

Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[t]he Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to alter a decision

after it becomes final” unless it lacked jurisdiction to enter the decision or the

decision resulted from fraud on the court).

Petitioners’ motion for clarification (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-70145