Spencer M. and Suzanne J. Stillman - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          Commissioner, 71 T.C. 108, 111-112 (1978).  The Court may vacate a final    
          decision if there has been a fraud on the Court.  Abatti v. Commissioner, 859
          F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 86 T.C. 1319 (1986); Senate Realty Corp. v. 
          Commissioner, 511 F.2d 929, 931 (2d Cir. 1975); Stickler v. Commissioner, 464
          F.2d 368, 370 (3d Cir. 1972); Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.
          1971), vacating and remanding 52 T.C. 295 (1969).                           
               The decision in this case was entered pursuant to a stipulated         
          settlement.  There was no trial; no evidence was adduced; no stipulations were
          filed in the record; and the stipulated decision does not recite any factual
          or legal bases upon which the deficiency was settled.  The compromise and   
          settlement of tax cases is governed by general principles of contract law.  
          Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 420, 435-436, supplemented
          by 53 T.C. 275 (1969); Brink v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 602, 606 (1962), affd.
          328 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1964).  Where a decision is entered pursuant to a    
          stipulated settlement, the parties are usually held to their agreement without
          regard to whether the decision is correct on the merits.  Stamm International
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 321-322 (1988); Spector v. Commissioner,
          42 T.C. 110 (1964).                                                         
               It is within this framework that petitioner asks for leave to file the 
          Motion to Vacate.  Petitioner contends that by failing to advise her of the 
          innocent spouse "opportunity", Mr. Stillman and the Hochman firm committed a
          fraud on this Court sufficient to justify granting the two motions.         
          Petitioner asserts that Mr. Stillman purportedly perpetrated this fraud by  
          failing to send the MAR Memorandum to her, while the Hochman firm ignored the
          fact that the Statement of Settlement was not signed by petitioner and      
          proceeded to carry out the settlement process.Initially, respondent          
          filed no objection to granting of the Motion for Leave, but Mr. Stillman filed
          an objection.  Petitioner objected and contended that Mr. Stillman had no   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011