Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 80




                                       - 163 -                                        

          authority over the matter and that his only remaining                       
          responsibility was to assist the OIG with its investigation.                
               Upon receipt of the referral, OIG assigned Senior Special              
          Agent Leland D. Halleck (Mr. Halleck) to investigate the matter.            
          Mr. Sanchez directed Mr. Dombrowski to provide Mr. Halleck with             
          all documents in respondent's possession that Mr. Halleck might             
          request and to answer Mr. Halleck's questions.  As part of his              
          investigation, Mr. Halleck considered whether there had been any            
          bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 201.  A violation of              
          this section had not been included in the Internal Revenue                  
          Service referral but was added by the OIG.  Mr. Halleck was not             
          restricted from investigating any other possible violations                 
          relating to the Thompson and Cravens settlements.                           
               Mr. Halleck interviewed Messrs. Sims and McWade in October             
          1992.  Messrs. Sims and McWade told Mr. Halleck that they would             
          not allow any of the Kersting test case petitioners to settle               
          because:  (1) They did not want the test case litigation                    
          delayed;66 (2) they would have had to find replacement cases with           

          66  As indicated supra pp. 41-42, removal of the Thompson                   
          and Cravens cases from the test case array in January 1987 would            
          not necessarily have caused a delay in the trial of the test                
          cases insofar as the Kersting programs in which the Thompsons and           
          Cravenses had participated during the years in issue were before            
          the Court in other test cases.  On the other hand, removal of the           
          Cravens cases might have caused the remaining test case                     
          petitioners to argue that the Cravens cases should be replaced              
          because Mr. Cravens was the only test case petitioner to report             
          capital gains upon the termination of his Kersting program.  In             
          any event, the nearly 2-year delay in the trial of the test cases           
          after Chicoine and Hallett were allowed to file amendments to               
          petitions raising evidentiary issues provided ample time for                
                                                             (continued...)           

Page:  Previous  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011