John M. & Rebecca A. Dunaway - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          including this Court, uniformly allow an attorney’s fee award to            
          include various out-of-pocket costs.  See United States v. Sam              
          Ellis Stores, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 286, 290 (S.D. Cal. 1991) (costs           
          for mileage awarded), affd. 981 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Austin           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-157 (costs for mileage and                 
          parking fees awarded); see also Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.            
          457, 493 n.13 (1993) (itemized mileage and parking costs deemed             
          conceded by respondent and awarded by the Court), affd. in part             
          and revd. in part on other grounds 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1995).             
               We perceive no material distinction between substantiated              
          out-of-pocket costs recoverable by a taxpayer who is represented            
          by an attorney and substantiated out-of-pocket costs incurred by            
          a taxpayer who is not represented by an attorney.                           
               Also, with regard specifically to out-of-pocket costs                  
          incurred by pro se taxpayers, we perceive no distinction between            
          those out-of-pocket costs conceded by respondent herein (such as            
          postage and delivery costs) and those out-of-pocket costs that              
          are disputed herein (such as mileage and parking fees).  Neither            
          type of out-of-pocket cost is specifically enumerated under                 
          section 7430(c)(1), and both types of out-of-pocket costs would             
          appear to be recoverable only under a broad meaning of the word             
          “includes” as used in section 7430(c)(1).                                   
               Further, it is helpful to consider how courts have                     
          interpreted the specific word “includes” in the context of a                
          number of different statutory provisions.  Generally, the word              
          “includes” is interpreted by the courts as a word of enlargement,           





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011