Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 107

                                       - 70 -                                         

               has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning                 
               in the law required for admission to practice before                   
               this Court and that the practitioner’s resumption of                   
               such practice will not be detrimental to the integrity                 
               and standing of the Bar or to the administration of                    
               justice, or subversive of the public interest.  [Id.]                  
                                       OPINION                                        
          Preliminary Comments                                                        
               The Court of Appeals has directed that the remaining test              
          case petitioners “and all other taxpayers properly before this              
          Court” receive judgments in their favor “on terms equivalent to             
          those provided in the settlement agreement with Thompson and the            
          IRS.”  Dixon v. Commissioner, 316 F.3d at 1047.  The Court of               
          Appeals has left to this Court’s discretion “the fashioning of              
          such judgments which, to the extent possible and practicable,               
          should put these taxpayers in the same position as provided in              
          the Thompson settlement.”  Id. n.11.                                        
               Throughout the proceedings required to implement the                   
          mandates of the Court of Appeals, petitioners, impelled by                  
          outrage and indignation at the fraud on the Court committed by              
          respondent’s attorneys, seem to view the mandates as an                     
          invitation to award damages against respondent.  Without in any             
          way minimizing the seriousness of the misconduct of respondent’s            
          attorneys, we decline any such invitation.34  The mandates do not           
          call for the recovery of damages by the taxpayers; they call for            


          34In any event, we lack jurisdiction to award damages.                      
          Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-152.                              




Page:  Previous  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011