- 9 -
Court also was directed to consider on the merits all motions of
intervention filed by parties affected by Dixon II. Id.8
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 Dixon II to participate in the
evidentiary hearing. Robert Alan Jones, Esq. (Mr. Jones),
entered his appearance on behalf of a group of non-test-case
taxpayers allowed to participate in this fashion.
During the evidentiary hearing, which was held at a special
trial session of the Court in Los Angeles in May-June 1996,9 Mr.
Jones expressed concern that, in addition to the settlement with
John Thompson, Mr. McWade may have entered into settlements with
other clients of Mr. DeCastro on terms more favorable than the
standard Kersting project settlement offer. In this regard, Mr.
Jones requested respondent's counsel, Mary Elizabeth Wynne, Esq.
(Ms. Wynne), to disclose the details of settlements entered into
with Mr. DeCastro's clients, including petitioners. In a letter
8 The appellate panel in Dufresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d
105 (9th Cir. 1994), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-614,
issued an order stating that the panel would retain jurisdiction
over any subsequent appeal.
9 Although the evidentiary hearing has been held, the
filing of various post-hearing motions, and as yet unresolved
disagreements among the participants over post-hearing
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 Dixon II.
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