26 U.S.C. § 7430 Litigation Costs

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Frank E. & Mildred E. Rickel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  900 F.2d 655· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the entire settlement amount received by the taxpayer for an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) lawsuit is excludable from gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) as damages received on account of personal injury.
• Zinniel v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  883 F.2d 1350· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 14×
  The Tax Court abused its discretion by finding the Commissioner's position reasonable, as the Commissioner's failure to issue timely regulations and subsequent assessment of deficiencies based on those unpromulgated rules was unreasonable and abusive.
• David J. Powell and the Estate of Jeane D. Powell v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  891 F.2d 1167· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that taxpayers are entitled to recover fees incurred in litigating their appeal and subsequent fee disputes when the government's underlying position was unreasonable. It also held that the Tax Court abused its discretion in setting an unreasonably low hourly rate
• Isadore Cassuto and Thalia Cassuto v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  936 F.2d 736· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys' fees for the 1981 petition and in refusing to recognize 'special factors' for a higher hourly rate, but erred in calculating cost of living adjustments from 1981 instead of 1986.
• Pate v. United States
  982 F.2d 457· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Government's litigation position was not substantially justified, entitling Property Owners to seek litigation costs, but they must also meet the net worth requirement.
• William L. Comer Fam. Equity Pure Tr. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  856 F.2d 775· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that litigation cost motions under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 are timely if filed after settlement of all issues, and that the reasonableness of the government's position includes its pre-litigation conduct.
• Hanson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  975 F.2d 1150· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Tax Court abused its discretion in denying litigation costs to the Hansons because the IRS's position was not substantially justified.
• Est. OF William Davidson Merch., III v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Serv.
  947 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 because the government's position was not unreasonable, considering the evolving legal landscape and the Supreme Court's initial grant of certiorari.
• Sansom v. United States
  703 F. Supp. 1505· N.D. Fla.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified, entitling the plaintiff to litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 because the government failed to prove the plaintiff had actual knowledge of tax understatement as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6701.
• Penner v. United States
  584 F. Supp. 1582· S.D. Fla.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government's position in defending the tax assessment was unreasonable, entitling the prevailing party to litigation costs, and awarded a reduced amount of those costs.
• Ankner v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-19
  The court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to litigation fees and costs because the United States' position was substantially justified, despite the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.