William and Arlene G. Kingston - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         



                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge:  This case is before the              
          Court on petitioners' motion for administrative and litigation              
          costs2 pursuant to section 7430 and Rule 231.  Neither party                
          requested a hearing, and the Court concludes that a hearing is              
          not necessary for the proper disposition of this motion.  Rule              
          232(a)(3).  Accordingly, the Court disposes of this motion on the           
          basis of the parties' submissions and the record in the instant             
          case as a whole.  The Court incorporates herein by reference                
          those portions of the opinion on the merits in this case set                
          forth in Kingston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-512, that are            
          relevant to the disposition of this motion.                                 
                                     Background                                       
               On November 17, 1997, the Court issued its opinion on the              
          substantive issues in this case.  The primary issue was whether             
          petitioner husband was "protected from loss", within the meaning            
          of section 465(b)(4), with regard to his investment in a                    
          partnership known as Hambrose Leasing 1985-3 (the partnership).             
          The Court held that petitioner husband was not "protected from              
          loss", within the meaning of section 465(b)(4), with respect to             

          2     Although petitioners' motion is styled "Petitioners Motion            
          for Award of Reasonable Litigation Cost", the substance of the              
          motion evidences an intent to move for administrative costs as              
          well as litigation costs.  The Court, therefore, considers the              
          motion accordingly.                                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011