- 32 -
penalties, and not with respect to the deficiencies. The excess
of the civil fraud penalties over the negligence penalties is
about one-third of the total of the civil fraud penalties and the
deficiencies determined against Sandra. We conclude that one-
third of the costs incurred in connection with the instant motion
is properly allowable to Sandra in connection with the penalties
issue.
The parties are to calculate the amounts so awardable in
connection with the computations under Rule 155. They are
cautioned to avoid “penny-wise and pound-foolish” disputes on
this matter. See, e.g., Dang v. Commissioner, 259 F.3d 204, 206
(4th Cir. 2001), affg. an unreported order and decision of this
Court entered July 21, 2000; Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-43 (issue II, B. 1, relating to a dispute, in an interest
abatement case, as to whether $2.44 had been paid on May 19,
1985, or May 19, 1986).
E. Qualified Offer
Sandra contends that, because she submitted a qualified
offer within the meaning of section 7430(g) and the judgment as
to her was less than the amount of the offer, she is the
prevailing party under section 7430(c)(4)(E). See supra note 4.
Respondent contends that “Petitioner’s letter * * * was not a
qualified offer, because it was not designated at the time it was
made as a qualified offer for purposes of section 7430(g).”
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011