- 14 -
also remanded the various nontest cases to the Tax Court for
further proceedings consistent with Dixon V.8
Shortly after issuance of Dixon V, the PH appellants and the
Hongsermeiers filed separate requests with the Court of Appeals
for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.
The PH appellants’ fee request related solely to services
performed by Porter & Hedges, and the Hongsermeiers’ fee request
related solely to services performed by Minns or under his
direction. As filed, both of those requests (hereafter, the
Binder/Minns fee requests) relied exclusively on section 7430.
Rather than filing their own fee request with the Court of
Appeals, the Youngs, through Izen, filed an objection to the
Binder/Minns fee requests. The primary thrust of the objection
was that the PH appellants and the Hongsermeiers had not paid or
incurred the amounts requested:
In actuality, Mr. Binder’s motion fails to reveal
the true clients in interest who have paid him fees to
represent their interests on appeal. These “real
clients in interest” are the same clients represented
by Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. in the appeal styled Barbara L.
Adair, Et Al, v. Commissioner, No. 01-70155, which is a
“related case” under this Court’s Local Rules. * * *
Although those real clients in interest paid Mr. Minns
and Mr. Binder for representation on appeal, (either
involuntarily or voluntarily) neither Mr. Minns nor Mr.
8 In response to inquiries by the Dixon V panel at oral
argument, Minns, acting pro bono, filed and pursued complaints
against McWade and Sims before their respective State bars and
the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility that resulted in
their suspensions from practice. See Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-90 (Dixon VI), at Findings of Fact Part IV.E.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011