- 13 -
interest of preserving the finality of judgments. Toscano v.
Commissioner, supra at 934.6
2. Whether Fraud on the Court Occurred in This Case
a. Whether the Decision Was Based on a False
Stipulation of Facts
Petitioner contends that James Merriam and Ted Merriam
submitted a false stipulation of facts. Petitioner contends
that, contrary to the stipulation of facts, the following
statements are true: (i) She was not the president and sole
shareholder of Napa; (ii) she did not borrow money from Napa; and
(iii) she did not know anything about Napa except that it was one
of James Merriam’s companies.
At the hearing on her motion, petitioner testified on direct
examination that she had no role in Napa, she did not know
anything about Napa except that it was one of James Merriam’s
companies, and she did not sign promissory notes or any other
Napa documents. She testified that she first learned that
promissory notes with her signature existed in April 2002. She
testified that she never borrowed money from Napa. She testified
and contends that she was not involved with Napa, including the
decision to liquidate it.
6 We reach this result without requiring petitioner to show
prejudice. See Dixon v. Commissioner, 316 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2003), revg. T.C. Memo. 1999-101.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011