- 15 -
The transcript of these May 17, 2004, proceedings does not
indicate that, 3 days earlier, Ace had recommended that
respondent concede the earned income credit issue.
On May 24, 2004, Ace asked respondent’s counsel’s office to
prepare decision documents and stipulation documents to resolve
the case.
Also on May 24, 2004, Ace returned Moffatt’s telephone call
of Friday, May 21. On May 25, 2004, Ace told Moffatt that
respondent’s paralegal was preparing the decision documents and
stipulation documents; at Moffatt’s request, Ace said she would
provide to Moffatt an estimate of the interest on petitioner’s
overpayment.
On June 16, 2004, respondent’s counsel’s office told Ace
that “she needed to consider the issue of petitioner’s request
for attorney’s fees before the case could be completely
resolved.”12
On June 21, 2004, Ace concluded that petitioner was not
entitled to litigation costs because “The Counsel for the
Petitioner does not wish to participate in an Appeals conference.
12 So stipulated. The record does not clarify whether it
was intended that there be a linkage between the earned income
credit issue and the litigation costs issue. Note that two of
the five assignments of error (supra text at note 8) in the
petition relate to petitioner’s claim for an award of reasonable
litigation costs, notwithstanding Rule 233 and the Rules referred
to therein. Note also petitioner’s statements set forth infra in
D. Qualified Offer.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011