- 33 -
than the maximum set forth in the statute since such a reading
would make the limit superfluous. See id.
Petitioner’s argument that because its counsel is one of
three board-certified tax attorney’s in the El Paso area a per-
hour rate above the statutory maximum should be awarded also
fails. The issue in this case was a question of fact, and the
determination of the ultimate issue largely relied on common law
principles. Thus, petitioner did not demonstrate that there was
a limited availability of attorneys who could adequately
represent it in this case.
Petitioner’s second argument, that worker classification
litigation requires special skills, also fails. Petitioner has
not provided us with any information that suggests its counsel
was a worker classification specialist. Even though petitioner’s
counsel focuses his practice on tax litigation, we do not find
that requires a different result from the one reached with
respect to his education and certifications. Again, worker
classification is a fact-based inquiry, and we believe that no
special knowledge is needed to set forth the relevant facts and
legal precedents.
Petitioner’s third argument, that its counsel’s special
skills caused respondent to concede the ultimate issue, is also
unconvincing because the facts the Appeals officer relied on in
making his decision to concede the ultimate issue were
established by the examining agent. It appears that in drafting
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011