- 17 -
the stipulated decision in their case. In so holding, we
determined that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners
was not invalid on its face. We see no benefit to revisiting
that issue in any detail here.
Petitioners contend that we should reconsider our decision
denying their Motion for Leave To File Motion To Vacate Decision
on the ground that we misinterpreted the basis for the motion.
Although we are confident that we did not “misinterpret” the
basis for petitioners' motion,11 we nevertheless will address
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration insofar as they now
contend that the stipulated decision entered in their case should
be vacated due to fraud upon the Court. In particular, we will
consider the merits of petitioners' allegations that the
stipulated decision entered in their case is the result of fraud
upon the Court. We will grant petitioners' motion for leave only
11 Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Motion To Vacate
Decision states that the holding in Scar v. Commissioner, 814
F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), establishes that the notice of
deficiency issued to petitioners “was wrongfully and fraudulently
issued.” Any ambiguity with respect to the ground for
petitioners' motion for leave was eliminated by petitioners'
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which contains multiple
references to the Scar case and states “it is abundantly clear
that the tests set forth in Scar v. C.I.R., supra were not met by
the Respondent when Petitioners' statutory notice was issued for
1978. We submit that no determination of deficiency was made by
the Commissioner in the case of * * * [petitioners'] 1978 tax
return”.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011