- 277 -
their piggyback agreements, which provided that all taxpayers
would be afforded the outcome of the test cases.
The Court of Appeals rejected the taxpayers' contention that
the Commissioner's position regarding entry of decision under the
piggyback agreements constituted fraud on the court.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals observed that, while fraud on
the court may occur when the acts of a party prevent his
adversary from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense,
it was the taxpayers' misunderstanding of the piggyback
agreements, rather than the Commissioner's fraud, that had caused
their misfortune. See id. at 118-119.
In Alexander v. Robertson, supra, the Court of Appeals
considered whether the entry of appearance at trial by counsel
who was not a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction constituted
fraud on the court in the following circumstances. Alexander
sued Robertson in the District Court for the Northern District of
California for failing to make required payments under a contract
to purchase a boat. Robertson in turn cross-claimed against
Fraser, Inc. (Fraser), the broker who had arranged for the sale
of the boat.
Following a trial, the District Court sustained Alexander's
claim against Robertson and rejected Robertson's cross-claims
against Fraser. However, Robertson subsequently learned that
David Warren (Warren), counsel for Fraser, had not been licensed
to practice law in the State of California at the time of the
trial. Robertson thereupon moved the District Court to vacate
Page: Previous 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011