- 4 -
Office. After reviewing the documentation, the Appeals officer
agreed with petitioner that there was no deficiency in income
tax, an accuracy-related penalty should not be imposed, and
petitioner’s refund should have been $1,179 rather than $1,287.
Petitioner conceded respondent’s determination relating to the
dividend income.
On September 26, 2005, the Court entered a decision,
pursuant to a signed decision document, in favor of petitioner in
the amount of $108. On October 20, 2005, the Court filed
petitioner’s motion for award of reasonable litigation and
administrative costs. On November 7, 2005, the Court filed
respondent’s objection.
Discussion
Petitioner contends he is entitled to litigation costs
because he “prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy.”
Conversely, respondent contends that his position was
substantially justified because petitioner did not properly
report his interest, dividend, and capital gain income. In
addition, respondent contends that petitioner failed to
substantiate his tuition expense.
The prevailing party in a Tax Court proceeding may recover
litigation costs. See sec. 7430(a); Rule 231. Petitioner bears
the burden of proving that he meets each requirement of section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011