- 2 -
requested a hearing, and we see no reason for a hearing on this
matter. Rule 232(a)(2). Accordingly, we rule on petitioners’
motion on the basis of the parties’ submissions and the existing
record. Rule 232(a)(1). We incorporate by reference portions of
Rosario v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-70 (Rosario I), our
opinion on the merits in the instant case, that are relevant to
our disposition of this motion.
After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether
petitioners are the “prevailing party” in the underlying tax
case.
Background
Antonio Rosario (petitioner), an orthopedic surgeon,
executed a Professional Practice Agreement (the practice
agreement) with the Jesse Holman Jones Hospital (the hospital)
which provided that petitioner would receive funds from the
hospital to ensure a monthly income of $33,334 (guarantee
payment). During 1993, pursuant to the practice agreement,
petitioner received $242,556 in guarantee payments from the
hospital. In Rosario I, the issue was whether the $242,556
1(...continued)
effect at the time the petition was filed.
2 In respondent’s response to petitioners’ motion for
administrative and litigation costs, respondent concedes that:
(1) Petitioners meet the net worth requirements as provided by
law; (2) petitioners have exhausted the administrative remedies
available within the Internal Revenue Service; and (3)
petitioners have not unreasonably protracted the litigation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011