- 267 -
opportunity to be heard before the appropriate tribunal, but also
an orderly presentation of evidence and a rational application of
the law thereto". Traynor, "The Riddle of Harmless Error", at 80
(1970). Having placed the burden of proof by clear and
convincing evidence on respondent, we are left with the definite
and firm conviction that the Government misconduct had no effect
on the decisions in the test cases whose petitioners were
represented by Mr. Izen.
IV. Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Misconduct
Mr. Izen contends that the Court should not reinstate
its decisions in Dixon II on the ground that the Government
misconduct in the trial of the test cases amounted to fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct under rule 60(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Izen's contention is akin
to a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Dixon II opinion
under Rule 161 or a motion to vacate a decision under Rule 162.
Relief under either of these Rules may be granted in the Court's
discretion to prevent injustice. See Chao v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. 1141, 1144-1145 (1989); see also Adams v. Commissioner, 85
T.C. at 375.
Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the
court may relieve a party or a party's legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: * * * (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of
an adverse party * * *.
Page: Previous 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011