- 26 -
Meanwhile, in the wake of Seery’s withdrawal, Kersting
engaged attorneys Robert J. Chicoine (Chicoine) and Darrell D.
Hallett (Hallett) to represent the test case petitioners (other
than the Thompsons and the Cravenses) at the Tax Court’s trial
session in Maui, Hawaii, which had been scheduled to commence
February 9, 1987. Chicoine and Hallett agreed to do so with the
understanding that they would not represent Kersting. In late
1986, Chicoine and Hallett apparently indicated to McWade and
Sims that they intended to challenge the admissibility of
evidence that had been seized in the January 1981 search of
Kersting’s office that became the subject of this Court’s opinion
in Dixon v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 237 (1988) (Dixon I). See
supra note 2. About the same time, McWade and Sims began to
offer 20-percent reduction settlements that were based on the
same general approach as their modified 7-percent reduction
settlement offer that included the burnout feature.
In December 1986, DeCastro traveled to Hawaii on behalf of
the Thompsons and a number of other clients who had participated
in the Kersting shelters. There DeCastro, accompanied by Gary
Poltash (Poltash), the Thompsons’ new accountant, who was not
associated with Kersting, began settlement discussions with
McWade. Their initial agreement called for a reduction in the
Thompsons’ 1979-1981 deficiencies of approximately 18.8 percent.
The settlement also provided for the elimination of all additions
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011