- 17 -
whether a settlement following several legal determinations
precluded the recovery of litigation fees pursuant to section
7430(c)(4)(E). In Gladden, only after the parties litigated, and
this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
decided, legal issues integral to the adjustments at issues were
the parties able to enter into a settlement agreement. We found
that judgment was not entered “exclusively” pursuant to the
settlement. We have not, however, previously had the opportunity
to address facts such as those before us to decide whether
respondent’s concession of an issue constitutes a settlement for
purposes of section 7430(c)(4)(E)(ii).
We apply the ordinary meaning of the term “settlement” as
used in section 7430 and find that respondent’s concession in
this case was not a settlement. See Med. Transp. Mgmt. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 96, 101 (2006); Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Associates Ltd. Pship., 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993)
(“Courts properly assume, absent sufficient indication to the
contrary, that Congress intends the words in its enactments to
carry ‘their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning’.” (quoting
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979))).
On the facts before us, we find respondent’s concession was
not a settlement. Petitioner first submitted her qualified offer
to respondent on July 1, 2005. This offer would have resolved
the asserted deficiencies against petitioner for an increase in
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007