Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

                      MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION2                        

          BEGHE, Judge:  With this opinion, the Court hopes to provide                
          a template for resolution of the more than 1,3003 remaining cases           





          2This opinion is issued pursuant to the mandates of the                     
          Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dixon V, revg. and                
          remanding Dixon III.  Dixon III had supplemented our Memorandum             
          Findings of Fact and Opinion in Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          1991-614 (Dixon II), vacated and remanded per curiam sub nom.               
          DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir. 1994).  For the             
          record, Dixon I is reported as Dixon v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 237           
          (1988), holding that petitioners had failed to establish standing           
          to contest a search of Kersting’s office, thereby sustaining the            
          validity of the deficiency notices generated by the information             
          discovered in that search.  Dixon IV, reported as Dixon v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-116, provided for awards of                   
          attorney’s fees under sec. 6673(a)(2) to petitioners in Dixon               
          III.                                                                        
               Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to              
          the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and             
          all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and              
          Procedure.                                                                  
          3In addition to the more than 1,300 open cases, petitioners                 
          in 52 of the more than 500 other dockets in the Kersting project            
          in which stipulated decisions were entered, both before and after           
          discovery and disclosure of the misconduct held by the Court of             
          Appeals in Dixon V to have constituted fraud on the Court, have             
          filed motions for leave to file motions to vacate their                     
          decisions.  The Court has returned unfiled numerous other such              
          motions because of procedural defects.  Petitioners filing or               
          attempting to file such motions have thereby sought to become               
          entitled to the benefits of the Thompson settlement as mandated             
          by the Court of Appeals in Dixon V.  Motions for reconsideration            
          have been filed in the three dockets addressed in Lewis v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-205, in which we denied                       
          petitioners’ motions for leave to file motions to vacate                    
          stipulated decisions in Kersting-related cases.                             




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