Estate of Charles A. Lippitz, Deceased, Michael Lippitz, Administrator and Rhita S. Lippitz - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          respondent another settlement offer, this time offering to settle           
          for full relief under section 6015(c) from any additional joint             
          liability.  In the same letter petitioner indicated to respondent           
          that she intended to file a motion for summary judgment if                  
          respondent did not agree to the settlement.  Respondent did not             
          agree to the settlement, and on May 24, 2006, petitioner filed a            
          motion for summary judgment.                                                
               On July 14, 2006, respondent moved for additional time to              
          respond to petitioner’s motion and indicated an intention to                
          concede petitioner’s entitlement to the relief recommended from             
          CCISO.  Respondent sought additional time in order to pursue a              
          stipulation of settled issues reflective of his concession.  At             
          this point, petitioner refused to enter into a stipulation of               
          settled issues.  In a subsequent filing related to respondent’s             
          motion to extend time, respondent indicated to the Court that he            
          in fact conceded the innocent spouse issue.                                 
               On September 21, 2006, this Court determined that                      
          petitioner’s motion for summary judgment was moot because                   
          respondent conceded.  Petitioner now moves for the recovery of              
          litigation costs.  Petitioner argues that for the period of July            
          28, 2004, to the present, she is entitled to an award of                    
          litigation fees because she is the prevailing party and                     
          respondent was not substantially justified.  For the period July            
          2, 2005, to the present, petitioner argues that she is entitled             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007