-14- (individual plaintiffs "retained" attorney and received representation, but payment was made by another, the Unification Church). Payment of Fees and Costs The issues involved in the gift tax deficiency cases of petitioner and her husband were identical. The primary question to be answered was, on the valuation date, what was the value of stock in the Company given as split gifts by Mr. Thompson and petitioner to their children. Both petitioner and her husband were represented by the same legal counsel. Under these circumstances, close scrutiny of the record before us is warranted to determine what fee arrangement in fact existed. See American Association of Retired Persons v. EEOC, 873 F.2d 402, 405-406 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (concern about evasion of party eligibility requirements is highest where one counsel represents more than one party, especially where the wealth of one or more of those parties would likely cause disqualification from recovering fees). Mr. Thompson engaged Mr. Hawkins and hired Mr. Batson. The Company, of which Mr. Thompson is chairman and principal shareholder, paid Mr. Batson's fee, and the payment was charged as compensation to Mr. Thompson. The evidence further shows that Mr. Thompson hired Mr. Aughtry, who, in turn, hired Mr. Mercer, the valuation expert who represented petitioner and Mr. Thompson after the filing of thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011