- 37 -
a. Hours Relating to “Intervention”
Izen allocates 147.51 hours of his time to “intervention”,
which we take to include not only his efforts to include in the
Adair appeal hundreds of nontest cases that had never been
consolidated with the test cases,23 but also time relating to
Jones’s belated attempt to intervene in the test case appeal on
behalf of the Cerasolis. We have previously described Izen’s own
intervention efforts as “unsuccessful and unnecessary”. Dixon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-97 n.42. In response to that
characterization, the Izen petitioners assert in their latest
filing that
Izen was successful in at least establishing before the
Ninth Circuit that the prospective Intervenors which
were denied intervention status before this Court[24] had
an interest in this case which entitled them to appeal.
Further, it was never clear in this proceeding that the
test cases were, at all times, adequate representatives
of the prospective intervenors or the * * *
[participating nontest case petitioners]. * * *
The assertion that Izen “[established] before the Ninth
Circuit that the prospective Intervenors * * * [were] entitled
23 We distinguish those efforts from actions necessary to
preserve the participation rights of the Adairs, whose case was
included in our certification order. See infra note 36.
24 In September and October 1992, after this Court had
entered decisions in the Thompson and Cravens cases, Izen and
Sticht filed motions for leave to intervene in those cases on
behalf of numerous nontest case petitioners, which we denied.
See Adair v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 129 (9th Cir. 1994)
(dismissing appeal of that denial). Respondent notes that Izen’s
lists of “prospective intervenors” in the Thompson/Cravens cases
and the test case appeal, respectively, are photocopies of the
same document.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011