Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 8

                                        - 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