Howard E. Clendenen v. CIR

Eighth Circuit

Howard E. Clendenen v. CIR

242 F. App'x 377

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2007

Docket06-3877

StatusUnpublished

This text of 242 F. App'x 377 (Howard E. Clendenen v. CIR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howard E. Clendenen v. CIR, 242 F. App'x 377 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Howard Clendenen appeals the tax court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Upon de novo review, see Arkansas Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Comm’r, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review), we conclude that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because it was filed approximately two-and-a-half years after the court’s decision became final, and no extraordinary circumstances existed that would have given the court jurisdiction to modify or vacate its judgment. See Arkansas Oil and Gas, 114 F.3d at 799-800 (vacating tax court’s denial of taxpayer’s motion to vacate because tax court lacked jurisdiction to hear motion after tax court’s decision became final, absent extraordinary circumstances); cf. Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assoc., 194 F.3d 922, 925-26 (8th Cir.1999) *378 (upholding district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) motion because change in law is not by itself an extraordinary circumstance, and district court did not abuse its discretion in giving weight to equitable considerations in denying motion).

Accordingly, we vacate the tax court’s denial of Clendenen’s motion to vacate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Howard Clendenen appeals the tax court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Upon de novo review, see Arkansas Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Comm’r, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review), we conclude that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because it was filed approximately two-and-a-half years after the court’s decision became final, and no extraordinary circumstances existed that would have given the court jurisdiction to modify or vacate its judgment. See Arkansas Oil and Gas, 114 F.3d at 799-800 (vacating tax court’s denial of taxpayer’s motion to vacate because tax court lacked jurisdiction to hear motion after tax court’s decision became final, absent extraordinary circumstances); cf. Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assoc., 194 F.3d 922, 925-26 (8th Cir.1999) *378 (upholding district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) motion because change in law is not by itself an extraordinary circumstance, and district court did not abuse its discretion in giving weight to equitable considerations in denying motion).

Accordingly, we vacate the tax court’s denial of Clendenen’s motion to vacate.

Kansas Public Employees Retirement, System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., A, Kansas Corporation Ronald Reimer, an Individual Kenneth H. Koger, Anindividual Clifford W. Shinski, an Individual Brent Messick, an Individual Robert Crew, an Individual Sherman Dreiseszun, an Individual I. I. Ozar, an Individual Frank Sebree, an Individual - Michael K. Russell, an Individual, Gage & Tucker, a Law Partnership Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., an Accountancy Firm Kpmg Peat Marwick, an Accountancy Firm Robert Spence, an Individual Thomas S. Morgan, Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank S. Morgan Marilyn J., Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank Morgan, - C. Patrick McLarney Substituted for Shook Hardy Law Firm, Intervenor - Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, Martin, L.L.P. William H. Sanders, Sr., Individually and as the Representative of a Class

194 F.3d 922 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F. App'x 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-e-clendenen-v-cir-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack