- 276 -
in the Tax Court. More specifically, the Court of Appeals
concluded:
When a deficiency was assessed, and Toscano
petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination, he
carried the fraud into the Tax Court. Thus he was
continuing to defraud the Commissioner, and he was
continuing to attempt to subject Miss Zelasko to a
liability that was not hers. But he was doing more; he
was also perpetrating a fraud upon the Tax Court, which
culminated in a determination of joint deficiencies
against Miss Zelasko as well as himself. This, we
think, was as much a fraud on the court as was the use
of the spurious article in the Court of Appeals in
Hazel-Atlas.
Id. at 935.
In Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1988),
affg. 86 T.C. 1319 (1986), the taxpayers argued that the Tax
Court had erred in failing to vacate final decisions against them
that were consistent with their agreements to be bound by certain
test cases. In particular, after the Tax Court had granted
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner in the test cases,
decisions were entered against the taxpayers in both the test
cases and the piggyback cases. Although two test case taxpayers
and a number of the taxpayers who had signed piggyback agreements
filed timely appeals and persuaded the Court of Appeals to
reverse the Tax Court's decisions, the remaining taxpayers in the
test cases and piggyback cases did not file appeals. Following
the remand of the appealed cases to the Tax Court for further
proceedings, the taxpayers who had not filed appeals argued
unsuccessfully in the Tax Court that the otherwise final
decisions entered against them should be vacated pursuant to
Page: Previous 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011