-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 the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011