- 13 -
property which respondent determined was owned by EOCC, or on any
other determination that respondent made in the notice. The
Court entered its decision in this case based on the agreement of
the parties reflected in the stipulated decision document as to
the amounts of any deficiencies in, additions to, and accuracy-
related penalties on petitioners' tax for 1988, 1989, and 1990.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to establish that respondent's conduct while petitioners'
case was pending before this Court rises to the level of "an
intentional plan of deception designed to improperly influence
the Court in its decision", Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. at
1325, let alone that any such plan, if it had been established by
petitioners, "has had such an effect on the Court", id. We
further find that petitioners have failed to show that the
decision entered in this case is the result of any other situa-
tion that warrants our exercise of our discretion under Rule 162
to grant petitioners' motion.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be issued
denying petitioners' motion
for leave to file a motion to
vacate decision out of time
embodying petitioners' motion
to vacate decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011