- 6 -
immigration law not special factors under Equal Access to Justice
Act).
Further, for special skills to be a special factor under
section 7430, petitioner must show that the skills were necessary
properly to present the case. Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 572;
Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 490. Petitioner must also
show that the attorney's skills are limited in availability and
that an increased award of attorney's fees would alleviate this
shortage. Powers v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d at 183; Pierce v.
Underwood, supra at 572; Baker v. Bowen, supra at 1084-1085;
Perales v. Casillas, supra at 1078-1079.
Petitioner asserts that only attorneys with special skills
could have resolved the instant case so successfully, but this
assertion is undermined by their claim that respondent's position
so conflicted with well-settled State and Federal law as to be
"egregious". Petitioner argues that respondent's position is
egregious because the Court of Appeals described the position as
unsupported, unreasonable, in conflict with well-established
State and Federal law, and contrary to respondent's own
regulations. Without citing any authority for the proposition,
petitioner then asserts that it is a special factor for
respondent to take an egregious position.
A position that is not substantially justified is not
necessarily egregious. See Bayer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011