- 8 -
After the issuance of Dixon III, Izen and Jones filed joint
motions for attorney’s fees and costs (the Izen/Jones request).
The Izen/Jones request relied primarily on sections 7430
(authorizing fee awards for certain prevailing taxpayers) and
6673(a)(2)(B) (relating to misconduct of the Commissioner’s
attorneys in Tax Court proceedings).5 The Court ordered the
movants to submit documentation pertaining to fees and expenses
incurred commencing June 10, 1992 (i.e., the day after the Court
learned of the misconduct by the Government attorneys). In Dixon
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-116 (Dixon IV), the Court
rejected the Izen/Jones request insofar as it relied on section
7430, on the ground that the movants had not substantially
prevailed in the proceedings as required by section
7430(c)(4)(A)(i). The Court did award a portion of the claimed
fees and expenses under section 6673(a)(2)(B).
The Court entered decisions in the remaining test cases, and
on June 29, 2000, Izen filed notices of appeal on behalf of the
test case petitioners (the Dixons, DuFresnes, Hongsermeiers,
Owenses, and Youngs).6 See sec. 7483. Izen and Jones also
attempted to file notices of appeal on behalf of their respective
5 Sticht subsequently filed his own motion for sanctions
(including attorney’s fees and costs), which we effectively
treated as having been premised on sec. 6673(a)(2)(B).
6 Ralph J. Rina, the other test case petitioner initially
represented by Izen, had settled his case in 1995.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011