Helen E. Foy - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          treating petitioner’s and Mr. Foy’s investments in SGE 1984-3 as            
          joint investments, allocating 50 percent of the SGE 1984-3 items            
          to petitioner, and adjusting the allocation, as required by                 
          section 6015(d)(3)(B), for the tax benefit that petitioner’s                
          share of the partnership items provided to Mr. Foy.                         
               In her motion, petitioner asserted that she met all of the             
          requirements under section 7430 to recover litigation costs in              
          the amount of $11,354.04.  The administrative and litigation                
          costs claimed in the motion were calculated using an hourly rate            
          of $195 for two of petitioner’s attorneys and included a claim of           
          $5,916.20 for petitioner’s alleged share of attorney’s fees (the            
          group fees) that petitioner’s attorneys had charged to two groups           
          of similarly situated Hoyt investor clients with pending section            
          6015 claims.  In support of the motion, petitioner’s counsel                
          attached billing records for petitioner’s account, dated                    
          September 10, 2002, to March 31, 2004, that described in detail             
          the attorney’s fees and costs petitioner incurred individually              
          and contained generic entries6 denoting monthly charges to                  
          petitioner’s account for her alleged share of the group fees.               
          Petitioner alleged that the group fees were reasonable and that             

               6Although petitioner agrees that the fee summary for her               
          account attached to the motion describes her share of the “Group            
          Innocent Spouse fees” as “flat” fees, petitioner contends that              
          the flat fee reference is simply the way in which the Pearson-              
          Merriam (petitioner’s attorneys’ law firm) billing program                  
          describes sum certain fees.  Petitioner’s representation is                 
          supported by a declaration of petitioner’s counsel.                         




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