Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 16

                                        - 16 -                                        
          reference and reproduce as the appendix, we concluded that “the             
          reasoning of Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., [496 U.S. 384                 
          (1990),] precludes us from awarding appellate fees and expenses             
          under section 6673.”  We resolved instead to “treat the present             
          movants as having revived their section 7430 claims” (i.e., those           
          raised in the wake of Dixon III and rejected by the Court in                
          Dixon IV on “prevailing party” grounds).10  With a nod to the               
          Youngs’ previous objection to the Binder/Minns fee requests, we             
          ordered the submission of net worth affidavits for all real                 
          parties in interest with respect to the Izen fee request and the            
          Jones fee request.  See Rule 231(b)(4); see also infra Part I.A.            
          Specifically, we requested the affidavits of “those individuals             
          who have made payments of the requested appellate fees and                  
          expenses to Mr. Izen--directly or through contributions to the              
          Atlas Legal Defense Fund--or Mr. Jones or are otherwise liable              
          for any portion of the requested appellate fees and expenses”.11            
               On May 10, 2006, we issued our opinion in Dixon v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 (Dixon VII), awarding, under               
          section 7430, $248,049.27 in respect of the PH appellants’ fee              
          request and $158,562.50 in respect of the Hongsermeiers’ fee                

          10 Consistent with that approach, on Nov. 2, 2005, we                       
          ordered that all future filings pertaining to the Izen fee                  
          request be filed on behalf of the Adairs as well as the Youngs.             
          11 We had issued a similar order pertaining to the                          
          Binder/Minns fee requests on Sept. 1, 2005.  See Dixon v.                   
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 App. A.                                    

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011