-10-
its impartial task of adjud[g]ing cases that are
presented for adjudication. Fraud, inter
partes, without more, should not be a fraud upon
the court." Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d
at 933, quoting 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice,
par. 60.33 (2d ed. 1970). To prove such fraud,
the petitioners must show that an intentional
plan of deception designed to improperly
influence the Court in its decision has had such
an effect on the Court. * * * [Citations
omitted.]
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where an appeal in this
case would lie, defined "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". Id., 859 F.2d at
118-119 (citations omitted).
The 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). A party moving to vacate a final decision of
the Tax Court bears a heavy burden of particularized pleading and
proof. Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d 670, 677-678 (7th Cir.
1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-209, and cases cited therein.
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 Chao v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1141,
1144 (1989)(motion to vacate denied because same result would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011