- 4 -
two letters, one dated February 12, 2002, and another dated April
5, 2002. Petitioner did not respond to any of these letters.
Beginning in November 2001, petitioner suffered from anxiety and
depression.
By notice dated August 23, 2002, this case was set for trial
at a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, trial session scheduled to
commence November 18, 2002.2 Petitioner brought with him
information regarding his 1999 tax return. On November 18, 2002,
the parties filed a stipulation and stipulation of settled
issues, which resolved all issues in petitioner’s favor.3
On November 18, 2002, petitioner filed a motion for award of
litigation costs. Petitioner seeks an award of $448,010.78.
Respondent contends that petitioner is not the prevailing party
within the meaning of section 7430(c)(4) because, while the
stipulation and stipulation of settled issues resolved all issues
in petitioner’s favor, respondent’s position was substantially
justified. In addition, respondent contends that petitioner did
not exhaust administrative remedies and that petitioner
unreasonably protracted the proceedings.
2 Because of petitioner’s failure to appear at the calendar
call, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution. Upon petitioner’s subsequent appearance, we denied
respondent’s motion to dismiss.
3 While the documents were initially titled stipulation and
decision, the Court changed the designation when it became
apparent that petitioner intended to make a claim for litigation
costs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011