- 2 -
J purported to form a qualified employee stock
ownership plan for Ps. R determined deficiencies, and
J, on behalf of Ps, petitioned this Court. R believed
J had a conflict of interest under Rule 24(g), Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. J informed Ps
as to his potential conflict of interest, received Ps’
informed consent to continue representing them in the
proceeding, and retained H to represent Ps as co-
counsel. R informed the Court of J’s potential
conflict of interest during a conference call and in a
pretrial memorandum. The cases settled before trial,
decisions were entered, and these decisions are now
final. Ps move the Court to vacate the decisions,
asserting primarily that R and J did not adequately
inform the Court of J’s potential conflict of interest,
which, in turn, constituted fraud on the Court.
Held, Ps’ motion will be denied for failure to
establish a fraud on the Court.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO, Judge:2 Petitioners move the Court for leave to file
a motion under Rule 1623 to vacate the stipulated decisions which
were entered in these cases on February 21, 2002. The motion
asserts that those decisions were the result of fraud on the
Court. Following an evidentiary hearing on the substance of
petitioners’ motion, we decide whether petitioners have
established a fraud on the Court sufficient for us to vacate
2 These cases were reassigned to Judge David Laro on Aug.
17, 2004, by order of the Chief Judge.
3 Unless otherwise noted, Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section references are to
the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011