- 2 -
for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. See Rule 232(a)(2).
Accordingly, we rule on petitioner’s motion on the basis of the
parties’ submissions and the existing record. See Rule
232(a)(1). The portions of our opinion on the merits in the
instant case, Morrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-53
(Morrison), that are relevant to our disposition of this motion
are incorporated herein by this reference.
After concessions2, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether
petitioner paid or incurred any attorney’s fees; (2) whether
respondent was substantially justified in his position before
petitioner made his qualified offer; (3) whether petitioner
unreasonably protracted the proceedings; and (4) whether the
costs claimed are reasonable.
Background
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner on
July 24, 2003, determining the following deficiencies in and
accuracy-related penalty on petitioner’s Federal income taxes:
Penalty
Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a)
1999 $87,780 $17,556
2000 4,075 –-
2 Respondent concedes that petitioner qualifies as a
prevailing party based on the qualified offer made on or about
Apr. 5, 2004, meets the net worth requirement, and exhausted all
administrative remedies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011