Estate of John L. Baird, Deceased, Ellen B. Kirkland and J. Samuel Baird, Co-Executors - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               To the extent that any of the Jones firm fees are not found            
          to constitute “reasonable litigation costs” under section                   
          7430(c)(1)(B)(iii), the estates contend that they are “reasonable           
          litigation costs” under section 7430(c)(1)(B)(ii) which include             
          “the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report,            
          test, or project which is found by the court to be necessary for            
          the preparation of the party’s case”.                                       
               We agree with the estates that the Jones firm’s fees are               
          allowable to the extent permissible under section                           
          7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).  We do not agree that the fees would be                 
          allowable as costs under section 7430(c)(1)(B)(ii), to the                  
          extent not allowable as attorney’s fees under section                       
               From the Court’s point of view Attorney Benjamin and the               
          Jones firm were acting as “attorneys” and not “experts” in the              
          setting of this case.  That point of view is in accord with our             
          ruling that Attorney Benjamin’s report was a legal brief and                
          coincides with the fact that the report was not received as                 
          direct testimony under Rule 143(f).  There was a need for legal             
          analysis on the legal question of co-ownership and partition in             
          Louisiana.  Indeed, the subject report was relied upon by the               
          estates and attached to the estates’ posttrial brief.  As such,             
          the subject report was considered by the Court and parties in               
          connection with their legal analysis of the valuation issues,               

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011