- 3 -
with respect to either the most significant issue or
set of issues or the amount in controversy, within the
meaning of section 7430(c)(4)(A)(i), or
(B) Whether respondent established that
respondent’s position was “substantially justified”
within the meaning of section 7430(c)(4)(B)(i);
(2) Whether petitioners unreasonably protracted the
proceedings; and
(3) Whether petitioners’ claimed costs are unreasonable
or excessive.
We reach issues (2) and (3) only if petitioners prevail, in
whole or in part, on issue (1).
In their memorandum of law, petitioners requested a hearing
on their litigation costs motion, on the ground that “respondent
has not favored petitioners with the basis for disagreement with
any allegations contained in petitioners’ motion”, in violation
of Rule 232(b)(7). Having examined the parties’ stipulations and
memoranda of law, we conclude that this litigation costs motion
may properly be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See
Rules 231(b)(8), 232(a)(2) (last sentence), and 232(b) (final
flush language).
Background
The underlying facts of this case are set out in detail in
Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-454, T.C. Memo. 2003-43,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011