- 4 -
thereafter, on June 9, 1992, respondent filed motions for leave
to file motions to vacate the decisions entered against the
Thompsons, the Cravenses, and another test case petitioner, Ralph
J. Rina (Mr. Rina). Respondent's motions to vacate alleged that,
prior to the trial of the test cases, respondent's trial
attorney, Kenneth W. McWade (Mr. McWade), and his supervisor,
Honolulu District Counsel William A. Sims (Mr. Sims), had entered
into contingent settlement agreements with the Thompsons and the
Cravenses that had not been disclosed to the Court or to the
other test case petitioners or their counsel. Respondent asked
the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
the undisclosed agreements with the Thompsons and Cravenses had
affected the trial of the test cases or the opinion of the Court.
The Court granted respondent's motions to vacate filed in
the Thompson and Cravens cases, vacated the decisions entered in
those cases, ordered the parties to file agreed decisions with
the Court, or otherwise move as appropriate, and denied
respondent's request for an evidentiary hearing. At the same
time, the Court denied respondent's motion to vacate the decision
entered against Mr. Rina on the ground that the testimony,
stipulated facts, and exhibits relating to the Thompson and
4(...continued)
issued an opinion rejecting petitioners' arguments that certain
evidence should be suppressed and that the burden of proof should
be shifted to respondent. See Dixon v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 237
(1988) (Dixon I).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011