- 274 -
677-678;114 Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Craftmaster
Furniture Corp., 12 F.3d 1080, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Toscano v.
Commissioner, supra at 934. In this regard, not all fraudulent
or deceptive acts constitute fraud on the Court. It has been
said that fraud on the court concerns egregious conduct affecting
the ability of the court to function impartially. See Broyhill
Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Craftmaster Furniture Corp., supra at
1085-1086, and cases cited therein.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra, a number of courts, including the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have relied upon or
adopted the definition of fraud on the court set forth in
12 Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, par. 60.21[4][a], at 60-52
(3d ed. 1998), which states:
"Fraud on the court" is defined in terms of its
effect on the judicial process, not in terms of the
content of a particular misrepresentation or
concealment. Fraud on the court must involve more than
injury to a single litigant; it is limited to fraud
that "seriously" affects the integrity of the normal
process of adjudication. Fraud on the court is limited
to fraud that does, or at least attempts to, "defile
the court itself" or that is perpetrated by officers of
the court "so that the judicial machinery can not
perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
adjudging cases". [Fn. refs. omitted.]
114 In Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d 670, 678 (7th Cir.
1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-209, the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit held that the taxpayers were required to
demonstrate "not only that the respondent engaged in conduct that
was intended to mislead the court, but--of paramount importance--
that the actual conduct affected the outcome of their case."
Page: Previous 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011