- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011