- 10 -
behalf of various nontest case petitioners, filed separate
motions with the Court to intervene in the Thompson and Cravens
cases. The Court denied these motions to intervene.6
In January 1993, after respondent’s management had
discovered the Thompson settlement and disclosed it to the Court
and while the other test cases were on appeal, respondent made a
project settlement offer to nontest case petitioners. This
offer, which in effect reinstated respondent’s earlier project
settlement offer to reduce Kersting deficiencies by 7 percent,
was substantially less advantageous to petitioners than the
Thompson settlement. More than 400 nontest case petitioners
accepted respondent’s reinstated project settlement offer.7
6Neither the Thompsons nor the Cravenses appealed the
decisions giving effect to their settlements. Izen and Sticht
separately appealed the orders denying their motions to intervene
in the Thompson and Cravens cases on behalf of the nontest case
petitioners in various courts, including the Courts of Appeals
for the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. All appeals in the
Thompson and Cravens cases eventually were dismissed. In an
unpublished opinion filed June 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit stated:
The Tax Court’s August 25 and 26, 1992 decisions
entering settlement in the Cravens and Thompson cases,
respectively, are final. 26 U.S.C. � 7481(a)(1); Fed.
R. App. P. 13. The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to
vacate those decisions. Billingsley v. CIR, 868 F.2d
1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 1989). Because there is no case
remaining in which the taxpayers can intervene, this
appeal is moot. [Adair v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 129
(9th Cir. 1994).]
7There were approximately 100 cases that had settled before
the discovery and disclosure of the misconduct of respondent’s
(continued...)
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