Eugene P. Kremer - Page 3




                                         - 3 -                                          
          assessment and requested respondent to rescind the deficiency                 
          notice.  Respondent’s agent agreed that it would be mutually                  
          beneficial to rescind, but the agent could not secure                         
          petitioner’s internal file, and, accordingly, petitioner                      
          requested respondent’s Appeals Office to rescind.  In early March             
          1999, respondent refused to rescind the December 10, 1998,                    
          deficiency notice, and so petitioner, through his counsel, filed              
          the petition to commence this proceeding.  At about this time, it             
          was evident that the Government would not seek a writ of                      
          certiorari with respect to the Picard case, a fact admitted by                
          respondent in his May 7, 1999, answer.                                        
               This case was set for trial by this Court’s August 19, 1999,             
          trial notice.  By letter dated November 18, 1999, respondent                  
          notified petitioner’s counsel that respondent would concede the               
          Picard issue, but would not agree to any costs or fees.                       
          Thereafter, petitioner and respondent negotiated concerning the               
          case, and, as of January 13, 2000, the parties reached an                     
          impasse.  On January 12, 2000, respondent’s counsel wrote a                   
          letter to petitioner agreeing to pay the fees up to that point at             
          an hourly rate of $125.  Petitioner, however, rejected the offer.             
          Respondent did not concede the substantive or underlying                      
          disability income issue until January 20, 2000, 4 days before the             
          scheduled trial session.  It appears that respondent withheld the             
          concession until petitioner’s counsel had to prepare the case for             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011