- 301 -
Sticht contends that the Court's opinion in Dixon II is not
binding on the Rinaldis.125 Mr. Sticht relies upon the misconduct
in the trial of the test cases to contend that the Court should
either enter a decision in the Rinaldis' favor or sever the
Rinaldis' case from the consolidated cases and set the case for
trial. Mr. Sticht contends that the Court's opinion in Dixon II
has no effect in the Rinaldis' dockets in which they did not
execute piggyback agreements.
Respondent contends that Mr. Sticht's motion should be
denied on the grounds that: (1) The record does not support
entry of decision in the Rinaldis' favor; and (2) the Rinaldis'
motion amounts to a premature attempt to avoid a "show cause"
proceeding. Respondent further contends that, if the Court's
opinion in Dixon II should be reinstated, it provides an
appropriate basis for resolving any deductions claimed by the
Rinaldis with respect to Kersting programs in dispute in Dixon
II.126
Consistent with our holdings that the Government misconduct
did not cause a structural defect in the trial of the test cases
125 The Rinaldis have seven cases docketed with the Court
assigned docket Nos. 31065-83, 21615-87, 6981-89, 11439-90,
27556-90, 14907-93, and 7205-94. The Rinaldis executed piggyback
agreements in each of the dockets listed above except docket Nos.
14907-93 and 7205-94.
126 Respondent states that the Rinaldis may have
participated in Mr. Kersting's Bauspar program during some of the
years for which they have filed petitions with the Court.
Respondent acknowledges that, because the Bauspar program was not
litigated in Dixon II, the Court's opinion would not dispose of
Bauspar deductions claimed by the Rinaldis or others.
Page: Previous 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011