- 7 -
Court vacated the decisions in the test cases and ordered
respondent to file a response to the motions.
Messrs. Izen and Jones failed to provide the Court with
affidavits or documentation specifically setting forth the
amounts of attorney's fees and costs incurred by their clients.
See Rule 231(d). Over the next several months, the Court issued
a series of orders directing Messrs. Izen and Jones to follow the
procedure described in Matthews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
577, affd. by unpublished opinion 106 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 1996),
and to provide the Court with itemized affidavits of attorney and
paralegal time describing the nature of the services rendered and
a fee schedule "setting forth the amounts of legal fees and costs
allegedly incurred and paid by petitioners (not by Mr. Kersting)
and the recipients thereof, commencing on June 10, 1992 to
date."5 The Court served Mr. Sticht with copies of all of the
orders issued to Messrs. Izen and Jones.
5 The Court informed Mr. Izen that no consideration would be
given to any attorney's fees and costs paid by Mr. Kersting,
consistent with the Court's finding in Dixon III that "Initially,
Mr. Kersting or the entities that he controlled paid the legal
fees associated with the Tax Court litigation. Later, however,
some Kersting program participants began paying $100 per month to
a legal defense fund managed by Mr. Kersting." Dixon III, T.C.
Memo. 1999-101 n.19. The Court does not intend to award
petitioners attorney's fees and costs that have been paid by Mr.
Kersting out of funds representing the "fees" that Mr. Kersting
charged program participants for the interest deductions that
respondent disallowed. See Dixon II, T.C.M. (CCH) at 1506, 1991
T.C.M. (RIA), at 91-3049 to 91-3050.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011