- 14 -
We recently addressed special factors in this context in
Cozean v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 227 (1997). In Cozean, we
recognized that for the "limited availability of qualified
attorneys" to qualify as a special factor allowing an increase in
the statutory maximum, "there must be a limited availability of
attorneys who possess distinctive knowledge or a specialized
skill needful to the particular litigation in question, as
opposed to an extraordinary level of general lawyerly knowledge."
Id. at 232 (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 572
(1988)). In providing examples of attorneys possessing
distinctive knowledge or specialized skill, the Supreme Court
listed patent attorneys and attorneys with knowledge of foreign
language or law. Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 572.
We have further noted that "the work and ability of counsel,
the results obtained, and the customary fees and awards in other
cases should not be considered for the purpose of determining
whether an increased award is warranted." Cozean v.
Commissioner, supra at 232-233 (citing Pierce v. Underwood, supra
at 573).
In accordance with the above, we do not regard as a special
factor the substantive tax expertise of Beeler nor the prevailing
local rates of tax attorneys with similar credentials. Although
petitioner required the services of a competent tax attorney, she
has failed to establish that there was a limited availability of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011