- 38 -
Court. In connection with these cases, he supervised the
activities of Mr. Tomsic, and, as supervisor, he familiarized
himself with the cases, discussed handling of the cases and
issues presented, reviewed all documents that were prepared for
filing with the Court, and attended all proceedings concerning
the cases at the Las Vegas trial session. He estimates that he
spent a total of 15 hours on these cases.
Respondent claims that it is reasonable to utilize hourly
charges of $150 and $200 for Messrs. Tomsic’s and Feinberg’s
time, respectively, in computing the lodestar amounts for these
cases. Respondent argues that those are the same rates that were
allowed by the Court for the Commissioner’s trial and supervisory
attorneys in 2002, in Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 304-305
(2002).
Mr. Jones does not question the reasonableness of the hourly
rates claimed for either Mr. Tomsic or Mr. Feinberg. Mr. Jones
has principally two objections to the award of excess costs.
First, he objects to respondent’s claim that all of the hours
expended by his attorneys are excessive and deserving of
compensation. Second, he claims that respondent fails to
describe and substantiate the nature of the services rendered by
his attorneys.
We see no merit to either of Mr. Jones’s objections. As we
have made plain, these cases are without merit and never should
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007