- 11 -
settlement package. As a result, the uniform settlement package
was withdrawn a month before the scheduled pretrial conference.
At the June 16, 1989, pretrial conference, representatives
of the promoters for the Barrister partnerships suggested that it
would be better to have a promoter-funded TEFRA partnership case
as a lead Barrister case. Special Trial Judge Pate agreed with
that approach. That pretrial conference did not result in the
selection of a Barrister lead case.
During September 1989, Barrister Equipment Assocs. Series
#115 v. Commissioner, docket No. 23263-89 (hereinafter sometimes
referred to as Series 115) was selected as the lead case for
Barrister. Series 115 involved 1983 and 1984; it was a TEFRA
partnership case.
In late 1989, the Court was informally advised that Shematz
had died. Thereafter, petitioners proceeded pro se.
On October 20, 1989, a motion was filed in Series 115 to
reassign that case from Special Trial Judge Pate to a
Presidentially appointed Judge of this Court. The motion was
based on contentions that assignment of that case to a Special
Trial Judge was not authorized by statute and that it violated
the United States Constitution. The motion also requested that,
if the Court denied the motion, then the Court should stay the
case and certify the issue for interlocutory appellate review
pursuant to section 7482(a)(2).
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