- 22 -
to an EAJA fee request--and thereby potentially
entitled to recover the requested fees--only by virtue
of one’s status as a real party in interest in the
underlying litigation on the merits; i.e., that
financial responsibility for the claimed legal fees
does not confer real party in interest status).
We now hold that the real parties in interest in
this litigation include not only the test case
petitioners and participating nontest case petitioners,
but also all other remaining nontest case petitioners.
* * * [Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 at
Part II.B.2.; fn. refs. omitted.]
We apply that reasoning to petitioners’ fee requests as well.
II. Entitlement to Relief Under Section 7430
A. Jones Fee Request--Jurisdictional Issue
1. Respondent’s Position
Respondent maintains that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
act on the Jones fee request. In his response to that request,
respondent states:
Mr. Jones never filed with the Ninth Circuit any
application or motion pertaining to an award of
appellate attorney’s fees. Unlike the situation with
Messrs. Binder, Minns and Izen, there is no order from
the Ninth Circuit conferring jurisdiction on this court
to determine the appropriate amount of Mr. Jones’
appellate attorney’s fees. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Respondent then notes that, under Ninth Circuit rule 39-1.6:
“The period for Mr. Jones to request appellate attorney’s fees in
connection with his interlocutory appeal has long since expired.”
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011