Benness M. Richards and Jane Richards - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          On May 8, 1987, the Court entered the parties' stipulated                   
          decision as described above in docket No. 8922-87.                          
          Petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or a timely                     
          motion to vacate or revise the decision entered May 8, 1987.                
          Consequently, the decision became final on August 6,                        
          1987, 90 days after the decision was entered.  Sec. 7481(a)(1).             

          2.  The Test Cases                                                          
               During the period that petitioners' case was docketed with             
          the Court, 14 dockets and eight petitioners with Kersting-related           
          adjustments were selected as test cases for trial.                          
               On January 12, 1987, during the same period that                       
          Mr. DeCastro was negotiating petitioners' settlement, the test              
          case taxpayers filed a motion for leave to file an amendment to             
          their petitions to raise various evidentiary issues based upon              
          their contention that the search of Mr. Kersting's offices was              
          illegal.  On January 14, 1987, the Court granted the test case              
          taxpayers' motion for leave to file.  The evidentiary issues                
          raised in the amendment to petition were resolved in the Court's            
          opinion in Dixon I.8                                                        

          8 In Dixon v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 237 (1988), the test                    
          case taxpayers argued that the search of Mr. Kersting's office              
          was illegal, that the materials seized during the search should             
          be suppressed in the test case proceedings, and that the burden             
          of proof and burden of going forward with the evidence should be            
          shifted to respondent.  The Court rejected these contentions on             
          the ground that the test case taxpayers failed to establish                 
                                                             (continued...)           




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