- 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