- 3 - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION BEGHE, Judge: These cases continue before the Court on petitioners Richard and Fiorella Hongsermeier’s motion under Rule 1612 for reconsideration of our Memorandum Opinion in T.C. Memo. 2006-90 (Dixon VI). Petitioners’ motion arises from litigation using a test case procedure that resulted in Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-614 (Dixon II), vacated and remanded sub nom. DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir. 1994), on remand Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-101 (Dixon III), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 2000-116 (Dixon IV), revd. and remanded 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (Dixon V). On the ensuing remand, Dixon VI responded to the Dixon V primary mandate with regard to the sanction imposed against respondent; and Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 (Dixon VII), and Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-189, responded to the Dixon V ancillary mandate with regard to petitioners’ appellate attorney’s fees and costs incurred in Dixon V. In Dixon V, as a sanction against respondent for the fraud on the court perpetrated by respondent’s attorneys in the trial of the test cases that had resulted in the decisions in favor of respondent against the test case petitioners in Dixon II, the 2Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.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