Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
               In Dixon V, the Court of Appeals considered the misconduct             
          of respondent’s attorneys in the test cases, determined that the            
          misconduct constituted fraud on the court, and formulated the               
          appropriate sanction.  The Court of Appeals then mandated that              
          this Court enter decisions in these cases on “terms equivalent to           
          those provided in the settlement agreement with [the Thompsons]             
          and the IRS”.  Dixon v. Commissioner, 316 F.3d at 1047.  We must            
          therefore consider whether the issue of respondent’s alleged                
          continued misconduct following the trial of the test cases was              
          addressed and disposed of in a prior proceeding so that the Dixon           
          V mandates foreclosed further inquiry into that subject.  See               
          Sprague v. Ticonic Natl. Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 164 (1939).                    
               In DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d at 107, the Court of              
          Appeals required the Tax Court to “conduct an evidentiary hearing           
          to determine the full extent of the admitted wrong done by the              
          government trial lawyers.”  During the course of the evidentiary            
          hearing required by the Court of Appeals in DuFresne, Izen sought           
          discovery of documents regarding respondent’s conduct following             
          the trial of the test cases, alleging that respondent attempted             
          to “cover up” the fraudulent conduct of the Government attorneys            
          in the test cases.  Following the evidentiary hearing mandated by           
          DuFresne, this Court issued two opinions, Dixon III and Dixon IV,           
          addressing sanctions against respondent.                                    








Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011