Eugene P. Kremer - Page 5




                                         - 5 -                                          
                                      Discussion                                        
               The discrepancy between the parties is attributable to two               
          aspects:  (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees               
          at $250 per hour or whether he is limited to the statutory rate;              
          and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to fees and costs after                
          respondent’s January 12, 2000, offer to settle petitioner’s fee               
          and cost claims.                                                              
               Petitioner argues that he is entitled to attorney’s fees                 
          greater than the statutory limit because his attorney is uniquely             
          qualified to practice tax law and that such specialized knowledge             
          was needed to aid him through his procedural dilemma.  Neither                
          respondent nor this Court questions the qualification of                      
          petitioner’s counsel; the focus here is on the need, if any, for              
          specialized expertise that would justify payment above the                    
          statutory limit.  The circumstances here were “cut and dried”,                
          and petitioner had favorable appellate court precedent.  The                  
          legal quest was to cause respondent to acknowledge that                       
          petitioner was entitled to a no-deficiency resolution of his case             
          and to compensate petitioner for his costs incurred in pursuing               
          that result.  We cannot agree that such “lawyering” would warrant             
          a variation from the statutory limit.  See, e.g., Huffman v.                  
          Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1149-1150 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in              
          part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-144; see also               
          Estate of Cervin v. Commissioner, 200 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2000),               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011