Haas & Associates Accountancy Corporation - Page 14




                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011