- 5 -
On December 27, 2000, respondent sent a letter (respondent’s
December 27, 2000 letter) to petitioners in response to petition-
ers’ December 12, 2000 letter. In respondent’s December 27, 2000
letter, respondent stated:
We received your letter of December 12, 2000. You
assert that IRS Publication 5 and 556 (and others) were
not considered when denying your claim for recovering
administrative and litigation costs. IRS publications
are for information purposes; they are not law. * * *
The Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation
sections described in our letter to you, dated November
20, 2000, are the controlling law in this area.
Additionally, we reviewed the publications men-
tioned. We found nothing in those publications that
was inconsistent with the law that controls the award
of administrative and litigation costs in your case.
On January 18, 2001, petitioners filed a petition for
administrative costs under section 7430(f)(2) in which they seek
to recover $7,232.60.2
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
2Although petitioners filed a petition for administrative
costs under sec. 7430(f)(2) seeking administrative costs totaling
$7,232.60, in petitioners’ June 12, 2000 letter petitioners
described their request to the IRS for $7,232.60 as “a request
for the recovery of administrative/litigation costs incurred
after Appeals through the Tax Court hearing”. It appears that
petitioners may have included not only administrative costs but
also litigation costs in their claim for $7,232.60 in their
petition for administrative costs under sec. 7430(f)(2). Assum-
ing arguendo that petitioners did include litigation costs as
well as administrative costs in their petition for administrative
costs under sec. 7430(f)(2), that fact would be immaterial to our
resolution of respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011