Mardi Rustam - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          $5,078.10, which represents 15.25 hours of service billed at $325           
          per hour, together with various miscellaneous costs.9  Petitioner           
          does not contend, however, that special factors justify the                 
          payment of attorney’s fees at a rate higher than that prescribed            
          by section 7430(c)(1).                                                      
               We will deny petitioner’s motion.  The only issue presented            
          by respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is               
          whether this Court has jurisdiction over the collection of                  
          petitioner’s section 6672 penalty liability.10  See sec.                    
          7430(c)(7).  As noted above, petitioner did not substantially               
          prevail with respect to that issue.11  Furthermore, petitioner              
          failed to demonstrate that his net worth does not exceed $2                 
          million, pursuant to section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).  Consequently,              
          petitioner is not the prevailing party in the proceeding before             
               Even if petitioner were the prevailing party, respondent’s             

               9In addition to billing petitioner $325 per hour for 15.25             
          hours of service, petitioner’s counsel states that he advanced              
          costs of $60 for filing the petition and $30.85 for postage,                
          copying, and faxes.  Petitioner’s counsel added anticipated court           
          parking costs of $17 and the $14 cost of “Federal Express Filing”           
          the amended motion to the litigation cost total.                            
               10We note that respondent has not yet filed an answer in               
          this case.  Consequently, respondent’s only position with respect           
          to petitioner’s sec. 6672 liability is that this Court lacks                
          jurisdiction over the issue.  See sec. 7430(c)(7).                          
               11Although petitioner contends that he prevailed with                  
          respect to the motion for litigation costs, that argument is                
          circular, and we will not consider it.                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011