- 3 -
We ruled in petitioner’s favor regarding petitioner’s MBA-
related expense deductions and the accuracy-related penalty but
denied petitioner deductions for other claimed business expenses
because petitioner failed to substantiate the expenses in
Allemeier I. Petitioner then submitted a motion for litigation
costs, and respondent filed a response.4 Respondent agrees that
petitioner: (1) Has not unreasonably protracted the court
proceedings; (2) has substantially prevailed with respect to the
amount in controversy and with respect to the most significant
issue presented in the court proceedings; and (3) has met the net
worth requirements as provided by law. Respondent disputes,
however, that petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies,
that petitioner was the prevailing party, and that petitioner’s
litigation fees are reasonable.
Neither party requested a hearing on this motion, and the
Court concludes that a hearing is not necessary to decide this
motion. See Rule 232(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court rules on
petitioner’s motion based on the parties’ submissions and the
record in this case.
Discussion
We must determine whether petitioner is entitled to recover
reasonable litigation costs. A taxpayer may recover reasonable
4Petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s response that the
Court did not direct petitioner to file. See Rule 232(a). The
reply raised no additional issues.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011