Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 118




                                       - 198 -                                        

          F.   Denial of Mr. Sticht's Motions for Release From Piggyback              
               Agreements                                                             
               On June 9, 1998, Mr. Sticht filed Motions for Release from             
          Piggyback Agreement on behalf of nontest case petitioners                   
          Richard B. and Donna G. Rogers, Anthony E. and Carol A. Eggers,             
          and John L. and Terry E. Huber.  Mr. Sticht contends that                   
          Mr. Seery's apparent conflict of interest, at a time when                   
          Mr. Seery represented the Rogerses, the Eggerses, and the Hubers,           
          provides an independent basis for releasing nontest case                    
          petitioners from their piggyback agreements.  In the alternative,           
          Mr. Sticht contends, in light of respondent's misconduct in the             
          trial of the test cases, that the Court should conclude that                
          respondent did not comply with the terms of the piggyback                   
          agreements.                                                                 
               On June 9, 1998, Mr. Sticht filed a Motion to Sever Case and           
          for Entry of Decision; Or Alternatively to Sever Case and Set for           
          Trial on behalf of Joe A. and JoAnne Rinaldi in docket No. 7205-            
          94.  The Rinaldis' case at docket No. 7205-94 concerns the                  
          Rinaldis' tax liabilities for 1990 and 1991 and is based upon a             
          notice of deficiency issued after the disclosure of the                     
          misconduct in the trial of the test cases.  Because the Rinaldis            
          did not sign a piggyback agreement in docket No. 7205-94,                   
          Mr. Sticht contends that the Court's opinion in Dixon II does not           
          bind the Rinaldis.  Mr. Sticht contends, relying upon the                   
          misconduct of respondent's attorneys in the trial of the test               
          cases, that the Court should either enter a decision in the                 


Page:  Previous  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011