                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-53



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  PETER J. TKAC, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 3556-00S.            Filed May 14, 2002.



     Peter J. Tkac, pro se.

     Roger W. Bracken, for respondent.



     GERBER, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.1     The decision to be

entered may not be reviewed by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.




     1
       All subsequent section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code as amended, unless otherwise indicated.
                                - 2 -

     On November 14, 2001, this Court issued T.C. Summary

Opinion 2001-175, in which we held that we did not have

jurisdiction in a lien and levy action over section 6702(a)

frivolous income tax return penalties for the 1994, 1995, and

1996 tax years.    We also held that, because of respondent’s

concession, respondent may not collect petitioner’s unpaid and

outstanding income tax liability for 1992 with respect to the

notice of intent to levy respondent issued as to that year.

     On January 25, 2002, petitioner’s motion for costs was

filed in which he sought an award of $3,555 for administrative

and litigation costs under section 7430.2    Petitioner’s $3,555

claim may be broken down into two major categories comprising

$3,000 for petitioner’s time of 120 hours at $25 per hour and

$555 for claimed expenditures for costs, travel, and legal fees.

The $555 may be further particularized as follows:

“Professional Legal assistance from lawyer (2 hours @ $100 per

hour)--[$]200 * * * Materials needed for case preparation--

[$]245 * * * Court Cost--[$]60 * * * Travel, copy, and postage

cost--[$]50”.     Respondent objects to the reasonableness and

amount of petitioner’s claim.     Respondent also contends that

there should be no recovery of costs and fees, because

petitioner has protracted the proceeding.


     2
       Petitioner’s motion for costs was filed after respondent
posed no objection to petitioner’s motion to vacate the Court’s
order and decision entered Nov. 20, 2001.
                               - 3 -

     Section 7430 enables the prevailing party in any

administrative or court proceeding to recover reasonable

administrative costs incurred in the administrative proceeding

and reasonable litigation costs incurred in the court

proceeding.   Sec. 7430(a); Maggie Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108

T.C. 430, 436 (1997).   There are various requirements that a

party must meet to be entitled to an award for costs.

Respondent agrees that “petitioner is the prevailing party and

entitled to reasonable litigation costs only, insofar as

petitioner incurred the litigation costs claimed and did not

protract the court proceeding.”

     In so agreeing, respondent has admitted that his position

was not substantially justified during the administrative and

the litigation proceedings.3   Respondent also admits that

petitioner meets the net worth requirements and that petitioner

has exhausted the administrative remedies available in

connection with the collection hearing.   Accordingly, the only

questions that remain for our consideration are whether

petitioner unreasonably protracted the Tax Court proceeding and

whether petitioner’s claimed costs are reasonable.




     3
       We note that respondent bears the burden on this element.
Sec. 7430(c)(4)(B).
                               - 4 -

Are Petitioner’s Claimed Costs Reasonable?

     The first category of costs we consider is petitioner’s

claim for his time (at $25 per hour) for his preparation and

participation in the administrative and litigation proceedings.

Petitioner’s allowable costs include only those expenses

actually “paid or incurred”, and “lost opportunity costs” may

not be recovered.    United States v. McPherson, 840 F.2d 244, 245

(4th Cir. 1988); Frisch v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 838, 846

(1986).   Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to recover the

$3,000 portion of his claim attributable to the time he spent

engaged in the administrative proceeding and this litigation.

     With the exception of petitioner’s $60 petition filing fee,

respondent contends that the remaining amounts petitioner

claimed are not recoverable because petitioner failed to

establish that he paid those costs or incurred them in pursuit

of the administrative proceeding or the litigation.    We consider

each part of the $555 portion of petitioner’s claim separately.

     Petitioner claims $200 for “Professional Legal assistance

from lawyer (2 hours @ $100 per hour)”.    Petitioner is pro se

and has not presented any detail regarding the billing of the

alleged legal services.    If petitioner had been represented in

this case, his attorney’s detailed billing records would have

been a prerequisite to the allowance of an award for the

attorney’s fees.    We cannot permit a lesser standard for the
                              - 5 -

recovery of attorney’s fees for consultation outside of

representation in the proceeding.     Accordingly, we agree with

respondent and deny petitioner’s $200 claim for legal fees

because of his failure to provide sufficient detail from which

to determine whether the claim for legal fees is reasonable.

     We next consider petitioner’s claim of $245 for materials

used in litigation and $50 for travel, postage, and copying

costs.   Again, respondent argues that petitioner should not be

allowed to recover any costs unless they are substantiated.       In

addition, respondent argues that petitioner is, in any event,

not entitled to recover his costs for travel.     With respect to

travel expenses, this Court has held that such expenses are not

recoverable under section 7430.     Mason v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1998-400; Buck v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-16.

Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to recover his mileage

expenses in pursuing this matter.

     Section 7430 does not require any particular level of

substantiation in order for a prevailing party to be entitled to

recover costs.   Although petitioner has not provided the Court

with supporting evidence of any expenditure, the Court’s file

does reflect that petitioner incurred expenses for postage and

copying expenses.   On the basis of information contained in the

record, we conclude that petitioner incurred $100 for copying

and postage.
                              - 6 -

Did Petitioner Unreasonably Protract the Court Proceeding?

     Section 7430(b)(3) provides that no litigation costs may be

awarded with respect to any portion of a court proceeding during

which the prevailing party has protracted the proceeding.    If

respondent is successful in this argument, petitioner could be

precluded from recovery of the $100 we have found was incurred

for copying and postage and the $60 that respondent conceded

that petitioner incurred for filing his petition in this

proceeding.

     The essence of respondent’s argument on this point is that

petitioner’s position and, hence, his meetings with respondent

were based on frivolous arguments/positions.   With respect to

the section 6702(a) frivolous income tax return penalties for

the 1994, 1995, and 1996 tax years, we have held that we lack

jurisdiction to consider those liabilities.    With respect to the

1992 income tax liability respondent conceded the income tax

deficiency and has admitted that his position was not

substantially justified.   Petitioner’s need to file a petition

and his costs for postage and copying would have been incurred

to pursue the 1992 income tax liability irrespective of whether

the section 6702(a) penalties were involved.   To the extent that

respondent conceded the 1992 income tax liability, petitioner’s

claim did not protract the proceeding.
                             - 7 -

     Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to costs of $160 under

section 7430.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                      An appropriate order and

                                 decision will be entered.
