- 5 -
In respondent's notice of objection to PFI's motion (respon-
dent's notice of objection), respondent concedes that the require-
ments of section 7430(b)(1) (exhaustion of available administra-
tive remedies), 7430(b)(4) (not unreasonably protracting the court
proceeding), and 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) (substantially prevailing with
respect to the amount in controversy or the most significant issue
or set of issues presented) have been satisfied. Respondent
disputes that PFI has established that the remaining requirements
of section 7430 have been met. With respect to their disputes,
PFI and respondent disagree about the identity of the prevailing
party to which the various requirements, including the net worth
requirements, apply. PFI contends that either Partnership or PFI
is the prevailing party to which section 7430 applies and that
either of those two entities satisfies the net worth requirements.
Respondent contends that the real party in interest and thus the
prevailing party for purposes of section 7430 is either Pacific
Harbor or PacificCorp and that neither of those corporations
satisfies the net worth requirements.
We need not decide the identity of the prevailing party or
any other dispute between PFI and respondent except whether
Partnership or PFI incurred the litigation costs at issue as
section 7430(a)(2) requires of a prevailing party.3 If PFI were
3 Although we need not address the other disputes between PFI
and respondent, we note that, in arguing in respondent's notice
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011