Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 14

                                        - 14 -                                        
          also remanded the various nontest cases to the Tax Court for                
          further proceedings consistent with Dixon V.8                               
               Shortly after issuance of Dixon V, the PH appellants and the           
          Hongsermeiers filed separate requests with the Court of Appeals             
          for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.            
          The PH appellants’ fee request related solely to services                   
          performed by Porter & Hedges, and the Hongsermeiers’ fee request            
          related solely to services performed by Minns or under his                  
          direction.  As filed, both of those requests (hereafter, the                
          Binder/Minns fee requests) relied exclusively on section 7430.              
               Rather than filing their own fee request with the Court of             
          Appeals, the Youngs, through Izen, filed an objection to the                
          Binder/Minns fee requests.  The primary thrust of the objection             
          was that the PH appellants and the Hongsermeiers 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, No. 01-70155, which is a                
               “related case” under this Court’s Local Rules. * * *                   
               Although those real clients in interest paid Mr. Minns                 
               and Mr. Binder for representation on appeal, (either                   
               involuntarily or voluntarily) neither Mr. Minns nor Mr.                

          8 In response to inquiries by the Dixon V panel at oral                     
          argument, Minns, acting pro bono, filed and pursued complaints              
          against McWade and Sims before their respective State bars and              
          the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility that resulted in              
          their suspensions from practice.  See Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 2006-90 (Dixon VI), at Findings of Fact Part IV.E.                    

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011