- 216 -
the Government misconduct included the illegal search of
Mr. Kersting's office, the issuance of erroneous notices of
deficiency intended to pressure taxpayers, secret settlements
with the Thompsons, Cravenses, and Alexanders, the use of
Mr. Thompson as a conduit for the payment of Mr. DeCastro's
attorney's fees, Mr. McWade's misrepresentations to Mr. Cravens
regarding the terms and effect of his settlement, and
respondent's denial of Mr. Jones' request to participate in the
discovery/investigation process that respondent undertook in
1992. Messrs. Izen and Jones contend that the confluence of all
of these factors amounted to Government misconduct so egregious
as to prevent the test case petitioners from fully developing
their positions at trial.
In the alternative, but in reliance upon the same factors,
Messrs. Izen and Jones contend that the Government misconduct
resulted in reversible error in the trial of the test cases.
Mr. Izen further asserts that: (1) The Government misconduct
resulted in a fraud upon the Court; and (2) respondent's use of
Mr. DeCastro to "infiltrate" petitioners' camp requires a new
trial. We will address separately the latter two contentions.
Mr. Izen contends that the proper remedy in these cases is
entry of decision in favor of all petitioners. In the
alternative, Mr. Izen contends that all petitioners should be
awarded a new trial. Mr. Jones contends that the Court should
order respondent to show cause why respondent should not be
Page: Previous 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011