Beaver Bolt, Inc. - Page 11

                                         11                                           
          $75.  Accordingly, we apply the $75 hourly rate, adjusted for               
          increases in the cost of living.  Sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).                  
                    b.   Adjustment of $75 Limit for Increases in the Cost            
                         of Living From 1986                                          
               We use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban                    
          consumers to adjust the $75 hourly limit for increases in the               
          cost of living.  Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 491; Cassuto           
          v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 256, 273 (1989), affd. in part and revd.           
          in part 936 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1991).                                        
               We have held that 1981 is the appropriate base year for                
          calculating cost of living increases under section                          
          7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).  Bayer v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 19, 23                  
          (1992); Cassuto v. Commissioner, supra at 269.  However, the U.S.           
          Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which this case is               
          appealable, has held that the appropriate base year for                     
          calculating cost of living increases is 1986.  Huffman v.                   
          Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in part            
          and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1991-144.  We follow that holding              
          here.  Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-758 (1970), affd.           
          445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).                                              
               In addition to attorney's fees, petitioner incurred                    
          litigation costs of $2,482.50.  Respondent does not argue that              
          the amount of litigation costs claimed by petitioner is                     
          unreasonable except for the hourly rate issue just decided.  We             
          treat this as respondent's concession that the number of hours              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011