- 48 -
closed cases from its mandate. To the contrary, we think that if
the Court of Appeals had intended to extend the Thompson
settlement to previously closed cases, it would have explicitly
said so.
Before petitioners settled their cases, their legal
situation was the same as those petitioners who did not settle;
the cases of all such petitioners were open. That prior
similarity, however, does not entitle petitioners to the rights
preserved by those Kersting project petitioners who did not
settle. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a
similar contention in Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d at 117,
where it held that some taxpayers in a tax shelter group who had
signed piggyback agreements and failed to appeal adverse
decisions in the test cases were not entitled to the relief
gained by other piggybackers who did appeal the adverse
decisions. The Court of Appeals observed that there is “‘no
general equitable doctrine which countenances an exception to the
finality of a party’s failure to appeal merely because his rights
are “closely interwoven” with those of another party.’” Id. at
120 (quoting Federated Dept. Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 400
(1981)).
In addition to arguing that they retain the status of other
non-test-case petitioners who rejected or did not respond to
respondent’s 1993 settlement offer, petitioners argue that the
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011