Sidney and Anna Dishal - Page 2




                                                  - 2 -                                                    

                  Petitioners moved the Court for an award of litigation costs                             
            only.  Accordingly, all costs claimed by petitioners are in                                    
            connection with the filing of the petition and thereafter.                                     
                  Neither party requested a hearing.  The relevant facts are                               
            taken from the record.  See Rule 232(a).                                                       
                                          General Background                                               
                  The petition in the underlying case was filed on January 13,                             
            1997.  Respondent's answer was filed on March 4, 1997.  A trial                                
            was held on February 11, 1998, in San Francisco, California.  The                              
            sole issue at trial was whether petitioners engaged in their                                   
            horse breeding and horse racing activities with the objective of                               
            making a profit within the meaning of section 183.  We filed our                               
            Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion on November 10, 1998,                                  
            holding that decision would be entered for petitioners.  See                                   
            Dishal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-397.                                                   
                  Respondent concedes that petitioners filed a timely motion                               
            for award of reasonable litigation costs, substantially prevailed                              
            with respect both to the amount in controversy and to the most                                 
            significant issue presented in the proceeding, met the net worth                               
            requirements, and have not unreasonably protracted the Court                                   
            proceedings.                                                                                   
                                               Discussion                                                  


                  1(...continued)                                                                          
            indicated.                                                                                     




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011