John G. Goette, Jr. and Marian Goettee - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
         Huckaby v. United States, 804 F.2d at 300, the Court of Appeals              
         stated as follows:                                                           
              Huckaby, however, has prevailed on the primary issue:                   
              whether the government was liable for tax return                        
              disclosures that were given without written consent.                    
              Section 7430(c)(2)(A)(ii)(II) is phrased in terms of                    
              issues not claims.  We therefore hold that Huckaby has                  
              met the second prong of the “prevailing party”                          
              requirement.  [Emphasis in original.]                                   
              We have not found, and petitioners have not directed our                
         attention to, any element in the instant case that plays a role              
         similar to the significance of the “written consent” issue in                
         Huckaby.                                                                     
              In Wilkerson v. United States, 67 F.3d 112, 120 (5th Cir.               
         1995), the Court of Appeals stated as follows:                               
                   Wilkerson has prevailed on her claim of wrongful                   
              levy, but failed on all her other claims, including                     
              wrongful disclosure.  Although she sought a greater                     
              amount of damages for the disclosures, that fact alone                  
              does not make the disclosure issue most significant.                    
              See Huckaby, 804 F.2d at 299-300 (holding that a party                  
              was a “prevailing party” despite award of only $1,000                   
              out of possible $28,000 in damages).  In order to                       
              determine which issue is most significant, we must                      
              determine which issue is primary or most nearly central                 
              to the case.  See id. at 300 (holding an issue most                     
              significant because it was “the primary issue”).                        
              Looking at the gravamen of Wilkerson’s complaint, the                   
              primary issue was whether the levies on Wilkerson’s                     
              property were wrongful.  The bulk of Wilkerson’s claims                 
              were in some way derived from the wrongfulness of the                   
              levies.  For example, Wilkerson’s argues that she is                    
              entitled to recover under the Fifth Amendment because                   
              the levies caused her to lose her business without due                  
              process or just compensation.  Likewise, Wilkerson                      
              based her claim of wrongful disclosure on a theory that                 
              the wrongfulness of the levies made the disclosures                     
              wrongful.  Although we reject this position,                            
              Wilkerson’s complaint indicates the centrality of the                   





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