- 12 -
as an attempt to challenge the validity of the notice of
deficiency under Scar v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioners assert
that their Motion To Vacate Decision was based upon the theory
that the stipulated decision entered in their case was the result
of a fraud upon the Court. Petitioners also contend that the
Court incorrectly allowed respondent to file a response in
opposition to petitioners' motion for leave without serving
petitioners with the response and allowing petitioners to file a
reply to the same.
In conjunction with their Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioners contend that their case should be consolidated with
Dixon v. Commissioner, docket No. 9382-83--the group of cases
that the Court previously consolidated pursuant to the mandate of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dufresne v.
Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioners argue
that
it is an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of
the Kersting cases including the massive and continuing
fraud committed and condoned by representatives of
Respondent and its Office of Chief Counsel for the
Office of Chief Counsel, and this Honorable Court, to
further attempt to “split off and contain” the illegal
and improper fraudulent conduct of Respondent by
attempting to deal with the overall conspiracy by
ruling on improper actions one at a time, thus
preventing their consolidation into a single action
which may be properly ruled upon by the panel of United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which has
retained jurisdiction over these matters.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011