- 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