-26-
(24) whether Kanter is liable for various additions to tax
and increased interest for the years at issue.
IV. New Rule 183 and the Court’s Review and Adoption Procedure
In their responses to respondent’s objection to the STJ
report, petitioners assert that the Court should ignore
respondent’s objections to the extent respondent (1) failed to
make “specific, written objections” and merely rehashed proposed
findings of fact and legal arguments from respondent’s posttrial
briefs, and (2) proposed new findings of fact (not contained in
respondent’s posttrial briefs). In connection with the
foregoing, petitioners assert:
Also, in many of his objections, respondent block-
quotes directly from the now-tainted Stricken Opinion.
As this Court is well aware, the published opinion in
this case was found by the Supreme Court to be
violative of the Tax Court’s own rules and was stricken
from the record. Because the published opinion was the
result of a process that has been held by the Supreme
Court to be legally insufficient, it is manifestly
improper for respondent to base his objections upon
that opinion. Incredibly, however, respondent quotes
at length from the Stricken Opinion without
acknowledging that he is doing so. Also, in his
objections, respondent in many instances incorporates
his proposed findings which are extracted from the
Stricken Opinion and therefore legally insufficient.
As a result, this Court should not consider those
objections or proposed findings of fact. Moreover,
many of the findings from the Stricken Opinion have
already been directly criticized by the Fifth Circuit
in Estate of Lisle v. Commissioner, 341 F.3d 364 (5th
Cir. 2003).
We agree that new Rule 183(c) generally does not contemplate
that a party may propose new findings of fact in the party’s
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