- 8 -
at 691. The narrow and limited definition of "fraud upon the
court" reflects the policy of putting an end to litigation, and
serves the important legal and social interest in preserving the
finality of judgments. Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930,
934 (9th Cir. 1971), vacating 52 T.C. 295 (1969). Other circuits
have also articulated a very narrow definition of "fraud upon the
court" and have underscored the heavy burden faced by a party who
seeks to set aside a final Tax Court decision. See Harbold v.
Commissioner, 51 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 1995); Aoude v. Mobil
Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989); Abatti v.
Commissioner, 859 F.2d at 118; Senate Realty Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra; Stickler v. Commissioner, supra.
In addition it is also clear that petitioner was required to
demonstrate, not only that respondent engaged in conduct that was
intended to mislead the Court, but--of paramount importance--that
the actual conduct affected the outcome of the case. Drobny v.
Commissioner, 79 AFTR 2d 97-2395 (7th Cir. May 1, 1997). In
addition to establishing improper conduct, a taxpayer who
attempts to set aside a final decision of the Tax Court must also
explain how the alleged conduct induced, caused, or had a
material effect upon the decision. See also Chao v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1141, 1144, (1989) (motion to vacate denied
because same result would have been reached even in the absence
of the alleged fraud upon the court); Abatti v. Commissioner, 86
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011