- 2 - After concessions by respondent,2 the issues for decision are as follows: (1) Whether petitioner unreasonably protracted the court proceeding. We hold that he did not. (2) Whether the litigation costs claimed by petitioner are reasonable. We hold that a portion of the litigation costs claimed by petitioner are not reasonable. Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, and the Court concludes that such a hearing is not necessary for the proper disposition of petitioner's motion. Rule 232(a)(2). We therefore decide the matter before us based on the record that has been developed to date. Background Petitioner resided in Barnesville, Ohio, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court. By notice of deficiency dated December 11, 1996, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1(...continued) in issue. However, all references to sec. 7430 are to such section in effect at the time that the petition was filed. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 2 Respondent concedes: (1) Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, see sec. 7430(b)(1); (2) petitioner substantially prevailed, see sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(i); (3) respondent's position at the time the notice of deficiency was issued and at the time respondent's answer was filed was not substantially justified, see sec. 7430(c)(4)(B); and (4) petitioner satisfies the applicable net worth requirement, see sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011