- 5 -
is considering similar allegations by other taxpayers in motions
for leave to file motions to vacate stipulated decisions that
were never appealed and have become final, we granted
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and ordered and received
respondent’s response to petitioners’ motion. However, we
conclude in this Supplemental Memorandum Opinion that the law of
the case and the primary mandate of the Court of Appeals in Dixon
V preclude us in the cases at hand from conducting any further
inquiry into respondent’s misconduct and from imposing any
additional sanction on respondent with respect to cases of
taxpayers, including petitioners, who were properly before that
court.4
Background
For purposes of this motion, we incorporate our findings in
Dixon III and IV, as modified by Dixon V and VI. We begin by
setting forth the background pertinent to this Supplemental
Memorandum Opinion.
Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax
against petitioners and other taxpayers who participated in tax
4We note that the law of the case and the mandates of the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dixon V do not preclude
this Court from making such an inquiry in addressing motions for
leave to file motions to vacate stipulated decisions filed by
taxpayers who were not properly before the Court of Appeals.
See, e.g., motions for leave filed by Jesse M. and Lura L. Lewis
in docket Nos. 15673-87, 18551-88, 29429-88, regarding Lewis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-205 (motion for reconsideration
pending).
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