- 37 -
could in certain cases relieve a party of a judgment
notwithstanding its finality under the statute. E.g., Kenner v.
Commissioner, 387 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1968) (relief may be allowed
in the case of fraud on the court); Reo Motors, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 219 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1955) (relief may be allowed
in the case of a mutual mistake of fact);4 La Floridienne J.
Buttgenbach & Co. v. Commissioner, 63 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1933)
(relief may be allowed in the case of a joint stipulation to
vacate). As to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the
circuit to which an appeal of this case lies, that court had
ruled that a final decision resulting from a “redetermination
based on a stipulation may be vacated [by a predecessor to this
Court] at the instance of the parties to the stipulation for good
cause shown.” La Floridienne J. Buttgenbach & Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 631. The court stated:
Counsel for the Commissioner here stands to the
petition [to vacate the decision] if it can be lawfully
granted, but as in duty bound contends that the Board
after four years cannot vacate its order, especially
since Revenue Act of 1926, � 1005 (26 USCA � 1228),
expressly declares: “The decision of the board shall
become final--(1) Upon the expiration of the time
allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such
petition has been duly filed within such time. * * *”
We appreciate the necessity of prompt decisions
touching taxes, and that they shall stand firm. The
4 In Harbold v. Commissioner, 51 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir.
1995), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated that it
would no longer follow Reo Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 219 F.2d
610 (6th Cir. 1955), in that, it concluded, that case had been
overruled by Lasky v. Commissioner, 352 U.S. 1027 (1957).
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011