- 12 -
mailed the settlement document to petitioners' counsel for his
review and signature, if not sooner, petitioners' counsel should
have alerted respondent to petitioners' claim for litigation
costs. At that point, either the proposed stipulated decision
could have been revised to reflect petitioners' entitlement to
litigation costs, see Rule 231(a)(1), or the parties could have
executed a stipulation of settled issues, see Rule 231(a)(2)(C),
(b)(3), and (c), thereby preserving the issue of litigation costs
for subsequent disposition by the Court. Petitioners could then
have filed their Motion for Litigation Costs, accompanied by the
stipulation of settled issues. See Rule 231(c). Alternatively,
petitioners' counsel, having executed the stipulated decision in
November 1993 but not intending that it be conclusive as to
litigation costs, could have filed the Motion to Vacate within
the 30-day period provided by Rule 162. See Rule 230(a).
However, petitioners' counsel did not pursue either of these
alternatives because they did not comport with his litigation
strategy.
C. Public Policy
Petitioners assert that they incurred substantial costs in
defending against what they regard as respondent's unreasonable
position. Petitioners then argue that because section 7430 was
enacted by Congress to deter the Commissioner from taking
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011