- 62 -
not the Court, and does not affect our jurisdiction. See sec.
6230(f).
Fraud on the Court
In the alternative, participants argue that respondent's
attorneys, Hamilton and Hayes, committed fraud on the Court
because they continued to deal with Winer as TMP of Davenport
despite their knowledge of the contents of the Permanent
Injunction and Modification. In their briefs and during the
evidentiary hearing on this matter, participants made very
specific and accusatory statements concerning the actions and
behavior of Hamilton and Hayes in this case. However, after a
full evidentiary hearing and full briefing of this issue by both
parties, we find that there is no evidence that Hamilton or Hayes
committed any fraud on the Court. We further specifically find
that Hamilton and Hayes had no knowledge of the terms or outcome
of the section 7408 injunction proceeding against Winer before
the decision in this case was entered.
We defined "fraud on the court" in Abatti v. Commissioner,
86 T.C. at 1325, as follows:
Fraud on the court is "only that species of fraud which
does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a
fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the
judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner
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
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011