- 7 -
Respondent’s position as to the applicability of Louisiana’s
usual community property laws was substantially justified in both
the court proceeding and the administrative proceeding.
Respondent’s position as to Sandra’s liability for fraud
penalties was substantially justified in neither the court
proceeding nor the administrative proceeding. However,
respondent’s alternative position as to Sandra’s liability for
negligence penalties was substantially justified in both the
court proceeding and the administrative proceeding.
Sandra did not unreasonably protract the proceeding.
In general, one-eighth of petitioners’ administrative costs
is attributable to the issue of Sandra’s liabilities for fraud
penalties in excess of negligence penalties. In general, one-
eighth of petitioners’ litigation costs that were incurred before
Sandra’s motion for award of costs is attributable to the issue
of Sandra’s liabilities for fraud penalties in excess of
negligence penalties. In general, one-third of Sandra’s costs
for Sandra’s motion for award of costs is attributable to the
issue of Sandra’s liabilities for fraud penalties in excess of
negligence penalties. No part of petitioners’ costs for Rule 155
computations (other than to reflect our ruling on Sandra’s
motion for costs) is attributable to the issue of Sandra’s
liabilities for fraud penalties.
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