- 14 -
the assessment periods of limitations that were about to expire.
Further, petitioners contend that in light of the qualified offer
they made and regardless of the fact that they did not
participate in an Appeals Office conference, they should be
regarded as having exhausted their available administrative
remedies.
Petitioners also contend that respondent’s objection to
their motion for litigation costs improperly relies on evidence
excluded by the Court at the trial of these cases (nontrial
evidence), and petitioners ask that we strike from consideration
of their motion for litigation costs such nontrial evidence.4
4 In connection with petitioners’ motion for litigation costs,
petitioners and respondent raise and address the following
additional issues that we do not decide:
(1) Whether a recovery by petitioners herein of litigation
costs under sec. 7430 should be limited to the particular
petitioner who was billed for the costs;
(2) Whether the experience of petitioners’ counsel with
complex business transactions would justify an enhanced
rate of recovery for attorney’s fees;
(3) Whether, under the qualified offer provisions of sec.
7430(c)(4)(E) and in analyzing whether the tax liabilities
of petitioners pursuant to our prior opinion are equal to or
less that what their tax liabilities would have been under
their qualified offer, in consolidated cases involving
multiple petitioners, each petitioner’s respective separate
portion of the tax liability under the qualified offer is to
be compared with each petitioner’s respective separate
portion of the tax liability under the decision to be
entered by the Court or is the comparison to be made as if
the multiple petitioners constituted a single taxpayer; and
(continued...)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011