- 16 -
Discussion
In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners ask the
Court to investigate and impose sanctions on respondent for
alleged misconduct that occurred after the trial of the test
cases.
Petitioners argue that there is substantial newly discovered
evidence that respondent’s management made misrepresentations to
cover up the extent of the fraud of respondent’s trial attorneys
and to distort the facts in pleadings filed with this Court in
order to reduce the Government’s monetary exposure and contain
respondent’s public embarrassment and accountability.
Petitioners ask the Court to conduct a further inquiry into
respondent’s alleged coverup misconduct and to impose additional
sanctions on respondent for that misconduct.
Respondent counters that, upon receiving the mandate of an
appellate court, the lower court cannot vary it or examine it for
any purpose other than execution, and that the Tax Court has
fully complied in Dixon VI with the mandate of the Court of
Appeals in Dixon V. We agree with respondent.
The Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review
the decisions of the Tax Court in the same manner and to the same
extent as decisions of the District Courts in civil actions tried
without a jury. Sec. 7482(a)(1). Upon such review, the Courts
of Appeals “have power to affirm or, if the decision of the Tax
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011