-11-
been reached even in the absence of the alleged fraud upon the
Court). Thus, petitioner must demonstrate, not only that her
purported signature was intended to mislead the Court but more
importantly that it materially affected the outcome of the case.
Drobny v. Commissioner, supra at 678.
Although the parties agree that petitioner did not sign the
stipulated decision, petitioner has failed to introduce any evidence
upon the issue of whether this had any material effect upon the
stipulated decision. Absent the demonstration that the purported
deception created an improper influence that affected the Court's
decision in this case, there can be no "fraud upon the Court". See
Drobny v. Commissioner, supra; Chao v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner relies on Toscano v. Commissioner, supra, to support
her fraud upon the Court claim. However, the facts of Toscano are
distinguishable from those herein. The relevant facts in Toscano
are as follows: Josephine Toscano (Josephine Zelasko) moved to
vacate a stipulated decision of this Court 15 years after entry upon
the grounds that she was not and had not been the wife of Mr.
Toscano. Mr. Toscano was not married when he filed what purported
to be a joint return, having either forged the signature of Ms.
Zelasko as his spouse or coerced her to sign the joint return
against her will. Mr. Toscano allegedly perpetrated three frauds.
First, he allegedly defrauded the Commissioner by filing a
fraudulent joint income tax return claiming he owed less tax than
was due by law. Second, he allegedly defrauded Ms. Zelasko by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011