- 4 -
Petitioners’ motion was filed on February 12, 2001, almost
two years after the Court entered the decision in this case and
20 months after that decision became final. Once a decision
becomes final, the Court may vacate it only in narrowly circum-
scribed situations, such as where the decision was obtained
through fraud on the Court, see Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d
115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 86 T.C. 1319 (1986), or where the
decision is void or a legal nullity for lack of this Court’s
jurisdiction over either the subject matter or the party, see
Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084-1085 (9th Cir.
1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 105-106 (1988).3
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has defined the
phrase “fraud on the court” to be “‘an unconscionable plan or
scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its
decision.’” Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
1971)(quoting England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir.
1960)), vacating 52 T.C. 295 (1969); see Abatti v. Commissioner,
3The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has indicated
that in extraordinary circumstances this Court has the power in
its discretion to vacate and correct a final decision where it is
based on a mutual mistake of fact. See La Floridienne J.
Buttgenbach & Co. v. Commissioner, 63 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1933).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal in
this case would normally lie, does not recognize this Court’s
power to vacate and correct a final decision where it is based on
a mutual mistake of fact. See Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d
115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 86 T.C. 1319 (1986); Lasky v.
Commissioner, 235 F.2d 97, 99-100 (9th Cir. 1956), affd. per
curiam 352 U.S. 1027 (1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011