- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011