- 6 -
that this Court may vacate a final decision if the decision is
shown to be void, or a legal nullity, for lack of jurisdiction
over either the subject matter or the party, see Billingsley v.
Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084-1085 (9th Cir. 1989); Abeles v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 105-106 (1988); Brannon's of Shawnee,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1002 (1978), or if the
decision was obtained through fraud on the Court. See Abatti v.
Commissioner, supra; Senate Realty Corp. v. Commissioner, 511
F.2d 929, 931 n.1 (2d Cir. 1975); Stickler v. Commissioner, 464
F.2d 368, 370 (3d Cir. 1972); Casey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-672. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has indicated that the Tax Court has the power in its
discretion, in extraordinary circumstances, to vacate and correct
a final decision where it is based on a mutual mistake of fact.
See La Floridienne J. Buttgenbach & Co. v. Commissioner, 63 F.2d
630 (5th Cir. 1933. But cf. Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d
618, 621-622 (6th Cir. 1995).
Petitioner contends that the decision in this case should be
vacated due to fraud on the Court. In Abatti v. Commissioner,
supra at 118-119, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
defined the phrase "fraud on the court" as "an unconscionable
plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the
court in its decision" or a fraudulent act that "prevents the
opposing party from fully and fairly presenting his case". See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011