Wayne C. Mason - Page 2

                                                - 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.                                                                 
                  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                              

            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                                  
                  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