- 121 -
intervention of respondent’s attorneys. To the contrary, by the
time the Thompsons filed their 1993 income tax return, many
attorneys in respondent’s Office of Chief Counsel, at the local,
regional, and national levels, were seeking to control the damage
caused by McWade’s preferential treatment of the Thompsons for
the years 1979-1981. The misconduct was also before the Court of
Appeals in the DuFresne appeal. McWade had retired from the IRS,
and Sims had been disciplined by respondent’s Regional Counsel.
Responsibility for the Kersting project cases had been
transferred to Dombrowski and O’Neill. The sources of the
misconduct in the handling of the Thompsons’ tax matters had been
effectively removed.
Dombrowski, who was assigned McWade’s duties with respect to
the test cases, did not engage in or perpetuate any misconduct.
He instead found himself faced with DeCastro’s apparently valid
request for a refund of interest accruing on the payments the
Thompsons had paid for their 1979-1981 taxable years. Dombrowski
approved that refund only after obtaining the approval of his
superior in the Regional Office and only after having some of
respondent’s experienced employees doublecheck his figures.
During his testimony, Dombrowski did not recall whether he
had told DeCastro about the income tax ramifications of the
refund under the tax benefit rule, but it was not his duty to do
so. Dombrowski’s approval of a refund of interest and
Page: Previous 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011