- 11 -
States], * * * EOCC had held mere record title to the
Modoc Property, with Petitioners being the beneficia-
ries of the title. Accordingly, the * * * [United
States] argued that economic interest in the Modoc
Property had, since its purchase in the name of * * *
EOCC, and including 1989 and 1990, belonged to peti-
tioners, not to * * * EOCC.
Petitioners further contend, inter alia, in petitioners' motion:
9. Respondent perpetrated a fraud upon this
court in failing to disclose that its true determina-
tion was that Petitioners had been the owners of the
Modoc Property in 1989 and 1990, and requesting the
court to enter its Decision which included deficiencies
against Petitioners on the basis, in part, that * * *
EOCC was the true owner of the Modoc Property.
10. Had Respondent's true determination been
disclosed to Petitioners and to this court, Petitioners
would not have agreed to the settlement, and this court
would not have entered its Decision. Had Respondent
disclosed to Petitioners that its true determination
was that Petitioners were the owners of the Modoc
Property in 1989 and 1990, Petitioners would not have
agreed to the settlement which imposed a constructive
dividend on them for their occupancy of the residence
located on the Modoc Property.
Respondent argues that petitioners have not established that
this Court should exercise its discretion under Rule 162 to grant
them leave to file a motion to vacate the decision in this case.
We agree with respondent.
There is no evidence in the instant record showing that
during the time petitioners' case was pending before us respon-
dent's determination with respect to the Modoc property was that
petitioners, and not EOCC, were the owners of that property
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011