- 12 -
Shortly after the issuance of Dixon V, the Hongsermeiers and
the PH petitioners filed separate requests with the Court of
Appeals for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. The
Hongsermeiers’ request relates solely to services performed by
Minns and Lawfinders, and the PH petitioners’ request relates
solely to services performed by Porter & Hedges. As filed, both
appellate fee requests relied exclusively on section 7430.
Rather than filing a fee request with the Court of Appeals
on behalf of the Youngs, Izen objected to petitioners’ fee
requests.9 Izen’s primary objection was that petitioners had not
paid or incurred the amounts requested:
In actuality, Mr. Binder’s motion fails to reveal
the true clients in interest who have paid him fees to
represent their interests on appeal. These “real
clients in interest” are the same clients represented
by Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. in the appeal styled Barbara L.
Adair, Et Al, v. Commissioner * * *.
9 Izen is not the only attorney in these proceedings who
was, at least initially, hostile to petitioners’ appellate fee
requests. In a filing relating to the evidentiary hearing
required to implement the primary mandate of Dixon V, Jones (who
would subsequently file his own appellate fee request on behalf
of the participating nontest case petitioners he represents, see
infra note 12) remarked:
Test case counsel, exclusive of Mr. Izen, charged
clients in excess of $500,000 to copy Mr. Izen’s, Mr.
Jones’, and Mr. Sticht’s prior work from the
evidentiary hearing [held in 1996 and 1997] without
adding one new idea which had a substantial effect on
the Dixon appeal. These taxpayers cannot afford to pay
expensive lawyers by the hour in order to get the
relief they so justly deserve.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011