- 7 -
provide for an award of reasonable administrative and litigation
fees and costs incurred in these civil proceedings.”9
On May 31, 2002, we filed respondent’s trial memorandum in
each of the cases. In those memoranda, respondent concedes the
deductibility of both the loan origination/acquisition costs and
the professional fees at issue.
On June 10, 2002, the cases were called for trial. No trial
was held, however, since the Court received from the parties
stipulations of settled issues that resolved all of the then
outstanding issues in the cases.10 A section of each stipulation
is entitled “Adjustments to Automotive Credit Corporation, Inc.
(1120S)”. In those sections, petitioner(s) in each case
concede(s) that ACC’s “expenditures for commissions and offering
expenses should be capitalized rather than deducted in the year
incurred”, and respondent in each case concedes the deductibility
9 Ms. Xenos does not identify the portion of the “costs at
issue” that respondent is alleged to be “reneging on”. We
surmise that Ms. Xenos is not referring to the loan
origination/acquisition costs conceded by respondent on Apr. 19,
2002, because her letter specifically confirms that “the service
has disavowed the position it pursued in the Lychuk case”; i.e.,
the capitalization of loan acquisition costs. (See the
description infra of the costs at issue in Lychuk v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 374 (2001).) The request for costs and
fees recoverable under sec. 7430 suggests it is to those costs
(e.g., attorney’s fees) that Ms. Xenos refers in her letter.
10 Although stipulations of settled issues were not filed
in the cases until Oct. 9, 2002, the parties urge, and we agree,
that identical stipulations were reached on June 10, 2002. We
shall, therefore, treat June 10, 2002, as the date the parties
stipulated as set forth in the stipulations filed on Oct. 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011