- 28 -
was affected by her husband's death. Under these circumstances,
Mrs. Dornbrock cannot now claim ignorance and expect this Court
to vacate a final decision based on such claims. A taxpayer's
lack of diligence does not amount to fraud on the Court.
Finally, Mrs. Dornbrock contends that, due to fraud on the
Court, she was denied the right to assert the defense of
"innocent spouse" under section 6013(e). The evidence does not
show that any person gave Mr. Young any reason to believe that
there was an innocent spouse issue in this case. Further, there
is no reason to believe that such issue was not raised in the
petition because of any collusion or fraud. Even if this Court
were to conclude that Mrs. Dornbrock was entitled to innocent
spouse relief, the decision should not be vacated because of the
failure of Mr. Young to raise that issue. See Slavin v.
Commissioner, 932 F.2d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 1991), revg. on another
ground T.C. Memo. 1990-44, involving failure to raise an innocent
spouse argument:
There is no principle of effective assistance of counsel in
civil cases. Shortcomings by counsel may be addressed in
malpractice actions; they do not authorize the loser to
litigate from scratch against the original adversary.
[Citations omitted.]
The argument of innocent spouse relief for Mrs. Dornbrock may
have been omitted through error or oversight or lack of
communication or because counsel considered, correctly or
incorrectly, that the argument was invalid, but the record here
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011