Gregory Drake - Page 43

                                                 - 43 -                                                    
            V.    Whether Petitioner Is Entitled to Litigation Costs                                       
                  Petitioner contends that he substantially prevailed with                                 
            respect to the most significant issue presented in the proceeding                              
            before this Court,28 that he meets the net worth requirements of                               
            28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(B), that he exhausted administrative                                      
            remedies, and that he did not unreasonably protract the court                                  
            proceedings.  Consequently, petitioner contends that he is                                     
            entitled to litigation costs in the amount of $20,007.45.                                      
                  Section 7430(a) provides that an individual may recover                                  
            litigation costs incurred in a court proceeding brought against                                
            the United States in connection with the determination of a tax                                
            or penalty.  Litigation costs may be awarded pursuant to section                               
            7430 if (1) the individual is the prevailing party, (2) the                                    
            individual has exhausted administrative remedies, (3) the                                      
            individual has not unreasonably protracted the court proceedings,                              
            and (4) the claimed litigation costs are reasonable.  Sec.                                     
            7430(a), (b)(1), (3), (c)(4).  The requirements of section 7430                                
            are conjunctive, and the individual has the burden of proving                                  
            that each of these requirements has been satisfied.  See Rule                                  
            232(e); Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492, 497 (1987).                                      

                  27(...continued)                                                                         
            did not contact respondent’s Appeals officer to resolve any                                    
            confusion.                                                                                     
                  28Specifically, petitioner contends that he prevailed in                                 
            Drake I, on the basis of his argument that the initial sec. 6330                               
            hearing was improper.                                                                          





Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011