- 8 -
sibling. T.W. & M.W. v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.
1997); Eiges v. Commissioner, supra at 67.
As previously discussed, the record amply demonstrates that
Mr. Campos is unable to prosecute this action due to a medical
disability. Moreover, as Mr. Campos’s spouse and de facto
representative, Mrs. Campos has a sufficiently close relationship
with Mr. Campos to justify her recognition as next friend.
Finally, although we recognize that conflicts of interest may
arise between spouses filing joint returns (see, e.g., sec.
6015), we are persuaded on this record that Mrs. Campos will
represent the best interests of Mr. Campos in this proceeding.3
Consistent with the preceding discussion, and considering
all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that this is an
appropriate case for the Court to exercise its discretion under
Rule 60(d). In an effort to promote the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of this case, we shall grant Mrs.
Campos’s pending motion in that we shall recognize Mrs. Campos as
3 There is no allegation in the petition that either spouse
is entitled to relief from joint and several liability on a joint
return under sec. 6015.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011