- 6 -
correct in contending that either Partnership or PFI is the
prevailing party for purposes of section 7430, respondent would
concede that each of those organizations meets the net worth
requirements.4 However, respondent argues that even if those
requirements were satisfied, neither Partnership nor PFI would be
entitled under that section to the litigation costs at issue
because, inter alia, PFI has failed to establish that either
Partnership or PFI incurred any costs in connection with this
Court proceeding as required by section 7430(a)(2).
Section 7430(a)(2) provides that the prevailing party may be
awarded "reasonable litigation costs incurred in connection with"
(emphasis added) a court proceeding involving the determination of
any tax, interest, or penalty under the Code. The term "reason-
able litigation costs" is defined to include, inter alia, (1) the
reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, section 7430(c)(1)(B)(i),
and (2) reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of
attorneys, section 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii), in connection with such a
court proceeding.
3(...continued)
of objection that her "overall position" in this case was sub-
stantially justified for purposes of sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(i),
respondent misstates and/or mischaracterizes certain of the
Court's findings in its Opinion.
4 If respondent were correct in contending that either Pacific
Holding or PacificCorp is the prevailing party for purposes of
sec. 7430, PFI would concede that neither would satisfy the net
worth requirements and that therefore no litigation costs at
issue should be awarded under that section.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011