- 2 - decide is whether petitioner was the prevailing party. For the reasons stated below, we deny petitioner’s motion for reasonable costs. Background At the time of filing the petition in the instant case, petitioner resided in Smyrna, Delaware. Vanya Tyrrell (Mrs. Tyrrell) prepared petitioner’s 2003 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (tax return).3 In the spring of 2005, respondent sent a letter to petitioner requesting that he submit documentation to support certain deductions claimed on his 2003 tax return. This was the initial contact letter and did not provide petitioner an opportunity for administrative review with respondent’s Office of Appeals. Petitioner did not respond with the requested documentation. Instead, petitioner’s attorney, Lowell E. Mann (Mr. Mann), sent a letter protesting respondent’s proposed 1(...continued) costs includes both administrative and litigation costs. We treat petitioner’s motion as a motion for both administrative and litigation costs. 2Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. 3Petitioner’s tax return was one of approximately 175 tax returns that were prepared by Vanya Tyrrell and chosen for examination by respondent’s Correspondence Examination Unit. All such cases involve similar unsubstantiated deductions. Lowell E. Mann represents the petitioners in all such cases and has filed virtually identical petitions for each such case.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011