- 6 -
cites some cases involving application of the phrase "fraud on
the court", petitioners do not contend in that motion that the
decision in this case was obtained through fraud on the Court.
Instead, petitioners contend that they should be granted leave to
file a motion to vacate and revise the decision in this case
because, subsequent to entry of that decision, they discovered
evidence which they claim respondent wrongfully withheld and
which they assert shows that they are entitled to interest
deductions for their taxable years 1981, 1982, and 1983. Respon-
dent argues that petitioners have not established that this Court
should exercise its discretion under Rule 162 to grant them leave
to file a motion to vacate and revise the decision in this case.
Respondent further argues that not all of the reasons specified
in rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are appli-
cable in this Court to relieve a party from a final decision and
4(...continued)
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due dili-
gence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has
been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
equitable that the judgment should have prospective appli-
cation; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within
a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not
more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding
was entered or taken. * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011