- 302 -
and that the misconduct resulted in harmless error, we see no
basis or justification for entry of decision in favor of the
Rinaldis. Nor will we sever the Rinaldis' case from the
consolidated group and/or set the case for trial at this time.
To the contrary, because we will reinstate our opinion in Dixon
II and enter decisions in the remaining original test cases, we
will abide the outcome of any appeal that follows the issuance of
this opinion. If affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we will, upon
respondent's motion, issue an Order to Show Cause in due course
directing the Rinaldis to show cause why the resolution of the
substantive tax issues in their case should not be controlled by
our opinion in Dixon II. See Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132
(1992); Acierno v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-441; Karlsson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-432; Bokum v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-21.
X. Protective Orders
As previously discussed, the Court issued protective orders
in these cases dated June 10 and 26, 1996, with respect to
documents produced by Mr. Thompson. By order dated August 27,
1998, the Court directed the parties, particularly Messrs.
Huestis and Sticht, to file reports with the Court stating in
detail any objection to the lifting of the Court's protective
orders. Mr. Huestis filed a report with the Court objecting to
the lifting of the Court's protective orders on the ground that
Mr. Kersting might use the records in question to harass the
Thompsons. Mr. Sticht and respondent filed separate reports with
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