- 5 -
The parties have stipulated that “there were a few other
attorneys in South Florida who had the expertise to deal with the
issues raised in the notice of deficiency and who charged hourly
rates comparable to[,] or higher than, those charged by
petitioners’ counsel.” In essence, respondent admits that there
was limited availability of qualified attorneys, that
petitioners’ attorney possessed a specialized skill needful for
the litigation in question, and that the services could not be
obtained at a lower rate. We also note that respondent has
represented to the Court that the CFC issue is “complex” and “a
case of first impression” and that petitioners’ attorney
possessed “recognized expertise in United States international
taxation”. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to the higher
rates paid.
The parties stipulated that fees for 4.9 hours in 1998
“relate to legal work which did not require specialized
knowledge.” Therefore, no special factor justifies the higher
rate for those fees.
B. Paralegal Fees and Other Costs
Petitioners seek reimbursement for the fees of two
paralegals at hourly rates of $120 and $90. Respondent contends
that $55 per hour (i.e., about half the attorney rate) would be
reasonable. We agree. See, e.g., Powers v. Commissioner, supra
at 493 (awarding paralegal fees at about half the attorney rate).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011