- 26 -
122 T.C. 272, 277-278 (2004). In that regard, respondent notes
that none of the steering committee members who are jointly and
severally liable for the Defense Fund’s obligations to Porter &
Hedges is a party to the PH petitioners’ fee request. Similarly,
respondent asserts that “[t]he Hongsermeiers have failed to show
that they, as opposed to the Atlas Legal Defense Fund and/or its
Steering Committee members, are personally liable for” Minns’s
fees. Respondent further complains that the appellate fee
requests are devoid of any evidence regarding the existence or
amounts of petitioners’ contributions to the Defense Fund.24
2. Real Parties in Interest
Under the “real party in interest” approach we adopted in
our September 1, 2005 order (App. A), the fact that petitioners
have not, by and large, paid or incurred the claimed fees and
expenses does not render those amounts unrecoverable under
section 7430. As one commentator has recognized in the context
of the EAJA, even though that statute “states plainly that the
award is to be made to the ‘prevailing party’”, “[t]his is not to
say that the party named in the lawsuit is invariably the true
litigant to whom an award is due.” Sisk, “The Essentials of the
24 Petitioners subsequently submitted schedules prepared by
the business manager of the Defense Fund indicating that the
Hongsermeiers and the Dixons contributed $3,900 and $3,000,
respectively, to the Defense Fund during the years 2000-2003.
Respondent does not suggest that contributions to the Defense
Fund cannot qualify as amounts paid for purposes of sec. 7430.
Cf. Grason Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 951 F.2d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 1991)
(suggesting that fees requested under EAJA may have been paid
through contributions to multiemployer association).
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