- 37 -
Commissioner’s trial and supervisory attorneys in 2002, in Takaba
v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 304-305.
Mr. Jones does not question the reasonableness of the hourly
rates claimed for Messrs. Tomsic, Wong, and 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
have been brought. By their declarations, Messrs. Tomsic, Wong,
and Feinberg describe adequately their activities with respect to
these cases. Messrs. Tomsic’s and Wong’s declarations are
accompanied by computer records that, we assume, were made
contemporaneously with the work performed and support their
claims. Moreover, we are familiar with the procedural and
factual history of these cases, and we believe that 12 hours was
reasonably necessary for Mr. Tomsic to do the work he describes.
We find that $150 is a reasonable hourly charge for Mr. Tomsic’s
time, and he reasonably expended 12 hours on this litigation.
The lodestar amount for Mr. Tomsic is, thus, $1,800. We believe
that 72 hours was reasonably necessary for Mr. Wong to do the
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007