- 29 -
average, the cases he brings have merit, some do not:
The Orders to Show cannot be properly answered in
the context of analysis of individual issues raised on
appeal from CDP [sec. 6330] hearings. This is true
because there are some “L” [sec. 6330] case docket
numbers which standing alone do not have appealable
issue[s]. However, in conjunction with other related
“L” case docket numbers, and sometimes statutory notice
of deficiency docket numbers[, they] have sufficient
appealable issues, and “hazards of litigation” which
justify settlement of all docket numbers before the
Court[,] as agreed upon by petitioners, their counsel,
and the IRS Office of Chief Counsel acting on behalf of
respondent.
All the amended petitions raise substantially the same issues.
If Mr. Jones believed that those issues were “appealable issues”,
by which term we assume that he means meritorious issues, then
there would be no reason for him to make his probabilistic
argument; i.e., while some of my cases have no merit, some do, so
that, on average, all of my cases have merit, and each is
entitled to a portion of some wholesale settlement. That Mr.
Jones does indeed take a wholesale approach to representing
clients before this Court is supported by his request that we
take notice that, during the three trial sessions of the Tax
Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, between December 2004 and February
2006, Mr. Jones and his clients settled 67 cases, agreeing to
make payments of $2,564,788 with respect to $11,067,835 of
claimed liabilities.3
3 That Mr. Jones takes a wholesale approach in representing
clients before the Court is also evidenced by the fact that he
(continued...)
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007