Laura E. Austin - Page 26

          preparation of a motion for summary judgment.  The record does              
          not show that petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, nor           
          does it explain why petitioner's attorney would have devoted time           
          to the preparation of such a motion.  Thus, we shall not award              
          fees for these hours.  In addition, two charges appear, 0.9 hours           
          for October 4, 1995, and 0.1 hours for November 28, 1995,                   
          relating to appointments that petitioner did not keep with her              
          attorney.  We do not award fees for these hours.  Finally,                  
          petitioner was not the prevailing party on the travel expense               
          issue.  This issue was a relatively simple matter of whether                
          petitioner could substantiate her travel deductions by adequate             
          records as required by section 274.  This issue was not addressed           
          in petitioner's trial memorandum, nor is there any specific                 
          reference in the itemized statement petitioner received from her            
          attorney concerning how much time he spent on it.  Considering              
          its simplicity, we find that 3 hours would be a reasonable amount           
          of time to spend on this issue.  The petitioner may not claim               
          litigation costs for this time.  Petitioner submits a claim for             
          7.1 hours (not including the excluded hours) incurred in 1995.              
          We find this amount to be reasonable.  Petitioner's counsel                 
          billed an additional 9.2 hours for "Professional Services" but              
          presented no detailed explanation for the services provided.  We            
          do not award fees for these hours.  Rule 231(d); Bode v. United             
          States, 919 F.2d 1044, 1047-1048 (5th Cir. 1990).                           

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011