Spencer M. and Suzanne J. Stillman - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          division of property.  Finally, even if Mr. Stillman's actions constituted  
          some sort of fraud, we do not think it was a fraud on the Court, but only as
          to petitioner, for which some other remedy may be available in another forum.
               As to the actions of the Hochman law firm in proceeding with the       
          settlement process without petitioner's signature on the Statement of       
          Settlement, we do not find that any fraud on the Court has been committed,  
          particularly in view of petitioner's signature on the stipulated decision   
          document.  We are not called upon, and do not make, any finding as to whether
          there was any neglect on the part of the Hochman firm.                      
               Petitioner relies on Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.   
          1971), to support her claim of fraud on the Court.  However, the facts in   
          Toscano are distinguishable from the instant case.  Mr. Toscano was not     
          married when he filed what purported to be a joint return.  The Court of    
          Appeals held that, if Ms. Zelasko could prove that Mr. Toscano either forged
          her signature as his spouse or coerced her to sign the joint return against 
          her will, then Mr. Toscano perpetrated three frauds.  First, he defrauded the
          Commissioner by filing a fraudulent joint income tax return claiming he owed
          less tax than allowed by the law.  Second, he defrauded Ms. Zelasko by      
          purporting to make her liable for his taxes.  Third, he carried this fraud to
          the Tax Court when he petitioned the Court for a redetermination of the     
          deficiency.  The fraud upon this Court culminated when the Court held Ms.   
          Zelasko liable for the tax deficiency.                                      
               Unlike Toscano v. Commissioner, supra, petitioners in this case filed a
          joint return and were subject to joint and several liability for any        
          deficiencies with respect to their joint return.  Sec. 6013(d)(3).  Petitioner
          was aware of the income tax case for which she could be held liable.  She   
          authorized and relied upon the Hochman law firm to handle her 1981 tax      
          matters.  She signed the stipulated decision entered by the Court.  These   







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

Last modified: May 25, 2011