- 44 -
To qualify as the prevailing party, the individual must
substantially prevail with respect to either the amount in
controversy or the most significant issue or set of issues
presented in the Court proceeding, and the individual must
satisfy the net worth requirement of section 7430(c)(4)(ii).29
Sec. 7430(c)(4)(A). The Court looks to the final outcome of the
case to determine whether the individual has substantially
prevailed within the meaning of section 7430(c)(4)(A). Cassuto
v. Commissioner, 936 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir. 1991), affg. in part
and revg. in part 93 T.C. 256 (1989); Bowden v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-30. The issuance of the Drake I opinion did not
represent the final outcome of the instant case, as we remanded
the case to respondent’s Appeals Office for a new section 6330
hearing while retaining jurisdiction. Consequently, we conclude
that petitioner did not substantially prevail for purposes of
section 7430(c)(4)(A) based upon the decision of this Court in
Drake I.
The most significant issue raised in the instant proceeding
is whether the ultimate determination of respondent’s Appeals
Office to sustain the proposed levy action against petitioner
constitutes an abuse of discretion. Petitioner has not prevailed
29Sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), as relevant here, effectively
limits the award of litigation costs to individuals with a net
worth of $2 million or less. Stieha v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
784, 789-790 (1987).
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011