- 23 -
Spaid’s response, we will order Ms. Spaid to reimburse respondent
for 54 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and 11.25 of Ms. Moe’s time. See
appendix.
We find that the $200 hourly rate requested by respondent is
reasonable. See Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523,
552 (2000) (holding that $200 an hour was a reasonable rate for
both Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe). Accordingly, the lodestar amount is
$10,800 for Ms. Zusi’s time and $2,250 for Ms. Moe’s time.
Respondent has not itemized costs for travel expenses,
photocopying, or supplies used in preparing the case, nor for the
time spent in preparing respondent’s affidavit. Respondent
limits his request for costs to the lodestar amount. We shall
require Ms. Spaid to pay $13,050 in respondent’s excess costs
reflecting the total lodestar amount.
Conclusion
In the case at hand, petitioner took frivolous and
groundless positions and unreasonably failed to pursue available
administrative remedies. We believe $24,000 is a substantial but
appropriate penalty for petitioner to pay the United States under
section 6673(a)(1). Therefore, the decision to be entered
against petitioner, in addition to determining the deficiencies
and section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties, will require
petitioner to pay a penalty of $24,000 to the United States
pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011