- 4 -
Petitioner and respondent executed the proposed form of
decision and submitted the same to the Court. On September 5,
1996, the Court entered its decision utilizing the form of
decision furnished by the parties.
Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal or a timely
motion to vacate or revise the decision. Consequently, the
decision became final on Wednesday, December 4, 1996, 90 days
after it was entered. Sec. 7481(a)(1).
On July 14, 1997, petitioner filed his Motion for Leave to
File a Motion to Vacate Decision. On August 11, 1997, respondent
filed a response in opposition to petitioner's motion.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session held in Washington, D.C., on August 20, 1997. Counsel
for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented argument in
opposition to petitioner's motion. Although petitioner did not
appear at the hearing, he did file a written statement with the
Court pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Petitioner's Rule 50(c) statement includes allegations that
the decision entered in this case should be vacated based on
fraud on the Court as evidenced by the following: (1) Petitioner
executed the form of decision with the understanding that he
would be permitted to file an offer in compromise (based on doubt
as to collectibility) in respect of his tax liabilities for 1991
and 1992; and (2) contrary to the form of decision, Revenue Agent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011