- 31 -
10002-00 and imposing a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on Ms.
Herbst in the case at docket 10001-00 in the amount of $25,000
and on Mr. Herbst in the case at docket No. 10002-00 in the
amount of $25,0000. The crux of petitioners’ motion for recon-
sideration regarding all of those holdings is petitioners’ claim
that petitioners’ conduct in these cases was the result of the
reliance by Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst on Mr. Binge, their tax
return preparer, and Mr. Bentivegna, an associate of Mr. Binge.
That claim rings hollow.
Not only did respondent and the Court inform petitioners in
these cases that there could be sanctions as a result of their
conduct in these cases, petitioners’ counsel Mr. Wise also
advised Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst that “reliance upon the recom-
mendations of James Binge may not be in their best interest.” In
response to such advice and other advice from Mr. Wise, petition-
ers fired him. As made clear in Mr. Wise’s motion to withdraw,
Mr. Wise made repeated efforts throughout the period starting in
at least June 2001 to September 11, 2001, to make Ms. Herbst and
Mr. Herbst understand that there could be sanctions if they
followed the advice of Mr. Binge and Mr. Bentivegna.12 On Sep-
12Contrary to the allegation in petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration that Mr. Binge and Mr. Bentivegna never shared
“non-traditional” beliefs with Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst because
they were regarded as “traditional” clients, Mr. Wise’s respec-
tive motions to withdraw in the cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and
10002-00 stated that Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst “indicated that
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011