- 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