Clifford E. Barbour, Jr. and Dorothy D. Barbour - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                          
          The Court agrees with and adopts the Opinion of the Special Trial            
          Judge, which is set forth below.                                             
                          OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:  This matter is before the Court            
          on the motion filed by petitioner Clifford E. Barbour                        
          (petitioner)2 for an award of litigation costs under section 7430            
          and Rules 230 through 233.                                                   
               The issues for decision are as follows:3                                
               (1) Whether petitioner substantially prevailed with respect             
          to the amount in controversy.  We hold that he did not.                      
               (2) Whether petitioner substantially prevailed with respect             
          to the most significant issue or set of issues.  We hold that he             
          did not.                                                                     
               Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, and the                 
          Court concludes that such a hearing is not necessary for the                 


               2  Although the petition in the underlying case was filed by            
          both Clifford E. and Dorothy D. Barbour, only Clifford E. Barbour            
          requests an award of litigation costs.  Therefore, in our                    
          discussion of the substantive case, we shall limit all references            
          to petitioner Clifford E. Barbour.                                           
               3  Respondent does not concede any of the following: (1)                
          That petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, see sec.              
          7430(b)(1); (2) that petitioner did not unreasonably protract the            
          proceedings, see sec. 7430(b)(3); (3) that respondent’s position             
          in the court proceeding was not substantially justified, see sec.            
          7430(c)(4)(B); (4) that the litigation costs claimed by                      
          petitioner are reasonable, see sec. 7430(a)(2) and (c)(1); and               
          (5) that petitioner satisfied the applicable net worth                       
          requirement, see sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).  However, in light of               
          our holdings as to the enumerated issues, we need not address                
          these matters.                                                               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011