- 8 -
under consideration by respondent's Appeals Office in San Diego.5
Therefore, in an effort to "avoid burning bridges", petitioners'
counsel intentionally delayed submitting a motion for litigation
costs until the eve of the expiration of the 90-day period that
typically leads to the finality of a stipulated decision. See
secs. 7481(a)(1), 7483.
Discussion
A. Time and Manner of Making a Claim for Litigation Costs
Petitioners advance arguments in support of their view that
they are entitled, without first filing a motion to vacate
decision, to file a motion for litigation costs at any time
before the decision becomes final. Thus, petitioners contend
that we must consider the merits of their Motion for Litigation
Costs without regard to their Motion for Leave. We disagree for
the reasons discussed in our prior opinion. Manchester Group v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-604, revd. on another issue 113
F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1997). We hold, as before, that we will not
consider the merits of petitioners' Motion for Litigation Costs
5 The other dispute apparently involved another taxable year
in respect of which a 30-day letter had been issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011