- 30 -
On June 21, 2001, Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe participated in a
conference call with Ms. Spaid and the Court. The purpose of the
conference call was to admonish Ms. Spaid that evidence of
deductions needed to be included in the record and explain to Ms.
Spaid that a gratuitous transfer of assets to a trust does not
result in a stepped-up basis for the assets. Respondent requests
reimbursement for 4.5 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and 1 hour of Ms.
Moe’s time. We do not order Ms. Spaid to reimburse respondent
for any of the time Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe spent preparing for and
participating in the conference call because the call dealt
almost entirely with issues that arose because of Ms. Spaid’s
negligence.
From July 2 to 6, 2001, Ms. Zusi spent 25.5 hours revising
the second stipulation of facts and preparing the accompanying
exhibits. Ms. Zusi’s affidavit states: “This time would not
have been necessary if Ms. Spaid had complied with the Court’s
directives and with the Tax Court Rules”. We believe the time
Ms. Zusi spent revising the second stipulation of facts was
caused by Ms. Spaid’s negligence, not her knowing and reckless
conduct. Accordingly, we do not order Ms. Spaid to reimburse
respondent for any of the time Ms. Zusi spent revising the second
stipulation of facts.
On July 17, 2001, Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe spent 2 hours each
preparing for and participating in a conference call with Ms.
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