- 10 -
Upon remand, the Court gave effect to the direction of the
Court of Appeals regarding intervention by allowing a number of
non-test-case taxpayers who had previously signed stipulations to
be bound by the decision in the test cases to participate in the
evidentiary hearing. Initially, the case of William D. and
Karen S. Booth, docket No. 28950-88, in which Declan J.
O'Donnell, Esq. (Mr. O'Donnell), had entered his appearance, was
consolidated with other cases of non-test-case taxpayers for
purposes of allowing Mr. O'Donnell to participate in the
evidentiary hearing. However, at the start of the evidentiary
hearing, the Court granted Mr. O'Donnell's motion to sever the
Booths' case from the cases consolidated for the evidentiary
hearing.10 Mr. O'Donnell argued that, in light of the theory
being asserted in the Booths' case, there was no need for the
Booths to participate in the evidentiary hearing.
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to summary
judgment (and entry of decision) consistent with the decision of
no deficiency and no additions to tax entered in the Thompson
case assigned docket No. 19321-83. In particular, petitioners
10 The evidentiary hearing was held at a special trial
session of the Court in Los Angeles in May through June 1996.
The filing of various posthearing motions, and as yet unresolved
disagreements among the participants over posthearing
stipulations of fact, have delayed the setting of a schedule for
the filing of briefs on the various issues raised by the mandate
of the Court of Appeals in DuFresne v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011