Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 15

                                        - 15 -                                        
               Binder ever substituted in on this appeal [No. 01-                     
               70155] as their attorney of record. * * *                              
          On the same day, Izen filed a motion in the Adair appeal (docket            
          No. 01-70155) to transfer consideration of appellate attorney’s             
          fees to the Tax Court.  See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.8.  Jones made no              
          filing on behalf of any of the Jones petitioners under either               
          Ninth Circuit rule 39-1.6 or 39-1.8.                                        
               The Court of Appeals granted Izen’s motion to transfer under           
          Ninth Circuit rule 39-1.8 on May 8, 2003.  On May 28, 2003, the             
          Court of Appeals remanded the Binder/Minns fee requests to the              
          Tax Court “for a determination of entitlement and, if warranted,            
               On May 19, 2005, more than 2 years after the Court of                  
          Appeals had granted his motion to transfer under Ninth Circuit              
          rule 39-1.8 in the Adair appeal, Izen filed in this Court, on               
          behalf of the Youngs, a motion for appellate attorney’s fees and            
          expenses under section 6673 (the Izen fee request).  On July 15,            
          2005, Jones filed a similar motion in this Court on behalf of the           
          Jones petitioners (the Jones fee request).9                                 
               In a September 8, 2005 order pertaining to both the Izen fee           
          request and the Jones fee request, which we incorporate by                  

          9 To update the story regarding Sticht’s appellate fees, see                
          Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 n.12., the Court has              
          been given to understand that Sticht and respondent are close to            
          completion of a comprehensive stipulation and submission                    
          regarding the fee claims of participating nontest case                      
          petitioners represented by Sticht.                                          

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011