- 10 -
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and requested an
evidentiary hearing. After vacating the decisions, the Court
denied the motion for evidentiary hearing, entered decisions for
the Thompsons in accordance with their final settlement, and
reentered or allowed to stand its decisions in the other test
cases. The Court thereafter denied motions by test case and
nontest case petitioners to intervene in the Thompsons’ cases
shortly before the new decisions in those cases became final. In
DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir. 1994) (hereafter
DuFresne), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
decisions against the other test case petitioners on the ground
that the misconduct of Sims and McWade required further inquiry.
The Court of Appeals directed this Court to hold an evidentiary
hearing to determine: “whether the extent of misconduct rises to
the level of a structural defect voiding the judgment as
fundamentally unfair, or whether, despite the government’s
misconduct, the judgment can be upheld as harmless error.” Id.
at 108.
This Court conducted the evidentiary hearing directed by the
Court of Appeals and held that the misconduct of the Government
attorneys did not create a structural defect but rather resulted
in harmless error. See Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
101 (Dixon III). We imposed sanctions against respondent in the
form of relief from the accrual of interest on additions to tax
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