1 All references to sec. 7430 are to that section of the
Internal Revenue Code as in effect at the time the petition was
filed, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
T.C. Memo. 2006-85
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CASPIAN CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18124-03. Filed April 25, 2006.
William E. Taggart, Jr., for petitioner.
Patricia Montero, for respondent.
VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on
petitioner’s motion for award of litigation costs and related
costs pursuant to section 7430 and Rule 231.1 We see no reason
- 2 -
2 Respondent concedes that petitioner is the prevailing
party due to the qualified settlement offer, meets the net worth
requirements, and exhausted petitioner’s administrative remedies.
for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. See Rule 232(a)(2).
Accordingly, we rule on petitioner’s motion on the basis of the
parties’ submissions and the existing record. See Rule
232(a)(1). The portions of our opinion on the merits in the
instant case, Caspian Consulting Group, Inc. v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-54 (Caspian I), that are relevant to our
disposition of this motion are incorporated herein by this
After concessions,2 the issues for decision are whether
petitioner unreasonably protracted the proceedings and whether
the costs claimed are reasonable.
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner on
July 24, 2003, determining the following deficiencies in and
accuracy-related penalty on petitioner’s Federal income taxes:
On October 22, 2003, petitioner timely petitioned this Court
conceding the deficiencies for both years and asking the Court to
redetermine only the accuracy-related penalty for the year 2000.
- 3 -
Therefore, the only issue for decision was whether petitioner was
liable for the penalty pursuant to section 6662(a).