- 10 -
claiming he owed less tax than allowed by the law. Second, he
defrauded Ms. Zelasko by purporting to make her liable for his
taxes. Third, he carried this fraud to the Tax Court when he
filed a joint petition with this Court for a redetermination of
the deficiency. The fraud upon this Court culminated when the
Court entered a decision signed on behalf of Ms. Zelasko, holding
her liable for the tax deficiency. The Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s Decision and held that Ms.
Zelasko, under these circumstances, was entitled to a hearing on
her allegations.
The facts in Toscano are distinguishable from the instant
case. Here, petitioner represented himself and negotiated a
settlement with respondent. He signed a stipulation of decision
which specifically provides for the assessment and collection of
statutory interest. We do not find any fraud perpetrated upon
this Court.
Accordingly,
An order will be issued denying
petitioner's Motion for Leave to
File a Motion to Vacate or Revise
the Decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011