                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-98



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               DANIEL PAUL BURGESS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 28710-07S.              Filed July 22, 2010.



     Daniel Paul Burgess, pro se.

     Beth A. Nunnink, for respondent.



     GALE, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions

of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the

petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision

to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this

opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.



     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioner

filed a timely petition, with respect to taxable years 2002

through 2005.   The parties have settled all issues in the case

except petitioner’s entitlement to administrative and litigation

costs pursuant to section 7430.   Pending is petitioner’s motion

for such costs.

                            Background

     Petitioner filed delinquent income tax returns for 2002,

2003, and 2004.   Petitioner filed his 2002 return on April 28,

2005.   Petitioner’s returns for 2003 and 2004 were received by

respondent on January 5 and 9, 2007, respectively.   Petitioner

filed his 2005 return on May 22, 2006.

     On March 5, 2007, respondent accepted and processed

petitioner’s 2003 return, assessing the $906 in tax shown as due

thereon.   On June 11, 2007, respondent accepted and processed

petitioner’s 2004 return, which reported a tax due of zero.

     On May 14, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a 30-day letter,

proposing changes with respect to his 2002 and 2005 returns.     On

June 13, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a 30-day letter

proposing changes with respect to his 2003 and 2004 returns.

     Petitioner disagreed with the proposed changes for 2002

through 2005 and participated in an examination that commenced in

April 2007 and concluded in September 2007.   Petitioner executed

a power of attorney in favor of his mother, Anita Burgess (Mrs.
                               - 3 -

Burgess), and she acted as petitioner’s representative during the

examination.

     The examining agent requested that petitioner provide

evidence of the miles he drove in connection with his work during

2002 and 2005, in order to substantiate his claimed car and truck

expenses for those years.   Petitioner provided no evidence

regarding 2002.   With respect to 2005 petitioner provided the

examining agent with a 2005 monthly planner containing mileage

entries (2005 mileage log).   The 2005 mileage log generally

contained entries for each business week, listing jobsites and a

total mileage figure for the day.      The mileage recorded for each

day was never less than 215 miles and never more than 265 miles.

The recorded mileage remained in this 40-mile range regardless of

whether a single jobsite or multiple jobsites were recorded for

the day.

     On the basis of an examination of the 2005 mileage log, the

examining agent and the group manager concluded that the mileage

petitioner claimed for 2005 was “egregious”.     Given the condition

of the 2005 mileage log and the absence of any substantiation for

2002, the examining agent decided to disallow all but 20 percent

of petitioner’s claimed deductions for car and truck expenses in

each year.

     The examining agent also took the position that petitioner

had failed to report certain income received in 2003 and 2004
                                     - 4 -

that had been reported on Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income.

Mrs. Burgess countered that all such income had been reported on

petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 returns, filed in January 2007.        The

examining agent informed Mrs. Burgess that petitioner’s 2003 and

2004 returns were not yet available in respondent’s computer

system and requested that petitioner provide copies.        Neither

petitioner nor Mrs. Burgess provided copies, despite a number of

followup requests from the examining agent and her supervisor.

     On September 19, 2007, respondent issued petitioner a notice

of deficiency, which determined the following deficiencies,

additions to tax, and penalties:

                                        Addition to Tax      Penalty
         Year           Deficiency      Sec. 6651(a)(1)   Sec. 6662(a)

         2002             $2,843              -0-             $569
         2003              1,768             $126              -0-
         2004              3,443              861              -0-
         20051             5,978              -0-            1,196
     1
      The first page of the notice of deficiency made no
reference to the 2005 taxable year, although the accompanying
“explanation of changes” did. Because “any statements or
computations in or appended to the notice should be considered”
in determining its validity, the notice of deficiency is valid
with respect to 2005. See Estate of Yaeger v. Commissioner, 889
F.2d 29, 35-36 (2d Cir. 1989) affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-264; Estate
of Scofield v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 154, 167 (6th Cir. 1959)
affg. in part and revg. in part 25 T.C. 774 (1956).

     The notice of deficiency determined that the car and truck

expenses petitioner claimed on his 2002 and 2005 returns were not

reasonable in amount or ordinary and necessary to petitioner’s

business.        The notice accordingly allowed only 20 percent of the
                                - 5 -

car and truck expenses claimed; i.e., $3,529 allowed as compared

to $17,647 claimed for 2002, and $5,491 allowed as compared to

$27,453 claimed for 2005.    The notice also disallowed $850 of

trade or business expenses claimed for 2002 on the grounds that

they were not incurred in carrying on a trade or business.

Further, the notice disallowed a supplies expense of $3,831, a

$255 expense for business use of a personal residence, and a $928

deduction for an automobile insurance expense, all claimed for

2005.    Finally, the notice determined that petitioner had failed

to report $6,299 and $18,110 of income from Craftsman Homes,

Inc., for 2003 and 2004, respectively.

     On October 23, 2007, respondent issued a supplement to the

notice of deficiency, conceding the disallowed car and truck

expenses for 2002 and 2005.

     On December 12, 2007, petitioner filed a petition with the

Court.    In the petition, he averred that he had reported all

income on his 2003 and 2004 returns and that he did not owe

additional taxes or penalties for 2002 through 2005.    Respondent

filed an answer on February 7, 2008, wherein he admitted that

petitioner had filed his returns for 2003 and 2004 but continued

to assert that petitioner had failed to report all income for

those years.    On or around June 4, 2008, an Appeals officer

reviewed petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 returns and determined that

petitioner had in fact reported all income for those years.      The
                                - 6 -

Appeals officer advised petitioner by letter dated June 4, 2008,

that a review of petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 returns showed that

all income had been reported.    Thereupon, respondent conceded the

2003 and 2004 deficiencies.

     The parties subsequently stipulated that respondent conceded

the car and truck expenses for 2002 and 2005, the deficiencies in

full for 2003 and 2004, the additions to tax under section

6651(a)(1) for 2003 and 2004, and the penalties under section

6662 for 2002 and 2005.   The parties further stipulated that

petitioner conceded the claimed business expense for 2002, as

well as the supplies expense, the business use of residence

expense, and the automobile insurance expense for 2005.

Petitioner thereupon filed a motion for administrative and

litigation costs, and respondent filed a response thereto.        The

Court held a hearing on petitioner’s motion, and thereafter

respondent filed a supplemental response.

                              Discussion

     Section 7430(a) allows a taxpayer to recover reasonable

administrative and litigation costs.       Administrative and

litigation costs may be awarded if the taxpayer (1) is the

prevailing party, (2) exhausted available administrative

remedies, (3) did not unreasonably protract the court

proceedings, and (4) claimed reasonable administrative and/or

litigation costs.   Sec. 7430(a), (b)(1), (3), (c)(1).      All
                                 - 7 -

requirements must be met, and the failure to satisfy any one of

the requirements precludes an award of costs.       Goettee v.

Commissioner, 124 T.C. 286, 289 (2005), affd. 192 Fed. Appx. 212

(4th Cir. 2006).    Section 7430 is a waiver of sovereign immunity

and must be strictly construed in the Government’s favor.         Estate

of Cervin v. Commissioner, 200 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2000),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-176; Simpson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1995-194.   Where the underlying substantive issues or the issue

of reasonable administrative costs has become the subject of the

Tax Court’s jurisdiction, the award of administrative costs is

made by the Court rather than the Commissioner.      Sec. 301.7430-

2(b)(2), (e), Example (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.

     To be the prevailing party, the taxpayer must substantially

prevail with respect to either the amount in controversy or the

most significant issues, or set of issues, presented.      Sec.

7430(c)(4)(A)(i).   In addition, the taxpayer must meet certain

net worth requirements.    Sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).    However, the

taxpayer will not be treated as the prevailing party if the

Commissioner establishes that the Commissioner’s position was

substantially justified.    Sec. 7430(c)(4)(B); Elder v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-281.       No award may be made with

respect to any portion of the administrative or court proceeding

during which the prevailing party has unreasonably protracted the

proceeding.   Sec. 7430(b)(3).
                               - 8 -

     Respondent concedes that petitioner exhausted all

administrative remedies and that petitioner meets the net worth

requirements.   Respondent also concedes that the most significant

issues in this case were the car and truck expenses for 2002 and

2005 and the unreported income for 2003 and 2004.   Petitioner

prevailed on these issues.   However, respondent contends that his

position was substantially justified and that petitioner

unreasonably protracted the proceedings.   Further, respondent

argues that if the Court finds against respondent on these

issues, many of the costs petitioner claims are not recoverable

because they are not allocable to respondent, they are

unreasonable, and/or petitioner did not actually pay or incur

them.

I.   Whether Petitioner Is Entitled To Recover Administrative or
     Litigation Costs

     Whether the Commissioner’s position was substantially

justified depends on all the facts and circumstances.    See Price

v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 660, 662 (1994), affd. without

published opinion sub nom. TSA/Stanford Associates, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 77 F.3d 490 (9th Cir. 1996).   A position is

substantially justified if it has a reasonable basis in fact and

law and is justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable

person.   See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988).     The

Commissioner bears the burden of proving that his position had a
                                 - 9 -

reasonable basis in both fact and law.      Sec. 7430(c)(4)(B);

Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 565.

     The Court awards costs on an issue-by-issue basis under

section 7430, apportioning the requested award among the issues

according to whether the Commissioner’s position on a particular

issue was substantially justified.       Elder v. Commissioner, supra;

see also Swanson v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 102 (1996).

     For purposes of determining whether petitioner is entitled

to recover administrative costs, respondent is considered to have

taken his position when the notice of deficiency was issued.

Sec. 7430(c)(7)(B)(ii).   For purposes of determining whether

petitioner is entitled to recover litigation costs, respondent

took a position in the Tax Court proceeding when the answer was

filed.   See sec. 7430(c)(7)(A); Corson v. Commissioner, 123 T.C.

202, 206 (2004).   Respondent’s position with respect to

petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 taxable years was the same in the

administrative proceeding and in the judicial proceeding; namely,

that petitioner had failed to report all of his income for those

years.   With respect to 2002 and 2005, respondent disallowed a

portion of petitioner’s claimed car and truck expenses only in

the administrative proceeding.    We shall therefore analyze

petitioner’s 2002 and 2005 taxable years separately from his 2003

and 2004 taxable years.
                                - 10 -

     A.     2002 and 2005 Taxable Years

     Because respondent had conceded the car and truck expenses

for 2002 and 2005 when he filed the answer, we need only analyze

petitioner’s 2002 and 2005 taxable years for purposes of

administrative costs.     We therefore consider whether respondent’s

position that petitioner was not entitled to 80 percent of the

car and truck expenses claimed was substantially justified when

respondent took the position in the notice of deficiency.

     In determining substantial justification, we look to whether

the Commissioner’s position was reasonable given the available

facts and circumstances when the position was taken.     See Maggie

Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 443 (1997); DeVenney v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 927, 930 (1985).     A significant factor is

whether, on or before the date the Commissioner took the

position, the taxpayer provided “all relevant information under

the taxpayer’s control and relevant legal arguments supporting

the taxpayer’s position to the appropriate Internal Revenue

Service personnel.”     Sec. 301.7430-5(c)(1), Proced. & Admin.

Regs.     The fact that the Commissioner eventually concedes or

loses a case does not establish that his position was

unreasonable.     Estate of Perry v. Commissioner, 931 F.2d 1044,

1046 (5th Cir. 1991); Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 760, 767

(1989).     However, the Commissioner’s concession is a factor to be

considered.     Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 471 (1993),
                               - 11 -

affd. in part, revd. in part on another issue and remanded 43

F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1995).

     Respondent’s decision to allow only 20 percent of

petitioner’s claimed car and truck expenses for 2002 was

substantially justified.    Petitioner provided respondent with no

records of his mileage driven for that year.   Indeed, petitioner

conceded at the hearing on this motion that he had never provided

respondent with any proof for the car and truck expenses for

2002.   Under these circumstances, respondent was substantially

justified in disallowing 80 percent of petitioner’s claimed car

and truck expenses for 2002.

     We conclude that respondent was also substantially justified

in disallowing 80 percent of the car and truck expenses

petitioner claimed for 2005.   Petitioner provided the examining

agent with the 2005 mileage log in an attempt to substantiate the

miles he drove for work in 2005.   The examining agent reviewed

the 2005 mileage log and concluded that the mileage petitioner

claimed was excessive.   The entries in the 2005 mileage log were

consistently high for every day petitioner claimed to have

worked, and the total miles did not bear a consistent

relationship to the number of jobs to which petitioner claimed to

have driven.   Although petitioner testified credibly at the

hearing that he often and unexpectedly had to travel long

distances to get supplies and that his claimed mileage was
                              - 12 -

accurate, we believe that at the time respondent issued the

notice of deficiency, respondent could reasonably have concluded

that petitioner’s claimed mileage was excessive.   Respondent was

therefore substantially justified with respect to the

disallowance of 80 percent of petitioner’s 2005 claimed car and

truck expenses.

     The record does not reveal why respondent ultimately

conceded petitioner’s entitlement to all car and truck expenses

claimed, but given petitioner’s failure to provide any records of

his 2002 expenses and the apparently excessive amounts reflected

in the 2005 mileage log, respondent’s eventual concession is not

determinative.

     We conclude that petitioner is not entitled to recover

administrative costs insofar as they pertain to his 2002 and 2005

taxable years.

     B.   2003 and 2004 Taxable Years

     We now consider whether respondent’s position that

petitioner had failed to report $6,299 and $18,110 in income in

2003 and 2004, respectively, was substantially justified with

respect to either the administrative proceeding or the judicial

proceeding.

     Petitioner submitted his 2003 and 2004 returns substantially

late, in January 2007.   Respondent opened an examination for

petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 taxable years (along with 2002 and
                               - 13 -

2005) in early April 2007.    Notwithstanding the pending

examination, respondent accepted the 2003 and 2004 returns and

had processed them by June 2007, as the plain language

transcripts record that assessments were made on the basis of the

submitted returns on March 5 and June 11, 2007, for 2003 and

2004, respectively.   In the examination, the examining agent took

the position that petitioner had failed to report all of his

income for 2003 and 2004.    Mrs. Burgess insisted that all income

had been reported.    The agent requested Mrs. Burgess to provide

copies of the returns, but she refused.    Eventually, on September

19, 2007, respondent issued a notice of deficiency which

determined that petitioner had failed to report income from

Craftsman Homes, Inc., of $6,299 and $18,110 in 2003 and 2004,

respectively.

     Respondent argues that the substantially late filing of

petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 returns, coupled with petitioner’s

refusal to provide copies of the returns, makes respondent’s

position in the notice of deficiency substantially justified.

Respondent also contends that petitioner’s refusal to provide

copies of the returns unreasonably protracted the proceedings.

We disagree.    While we believe respondent is entitled to some

reasonable period after the January 2007 submission of the

returns before he is chargeable with knowledge of their contents,

we do not believe that period extended significantly beyond June
                                - 14 -

2007, when respondent accepted and processed the later of the two

returns.2   The notice of deficiency was issued on September 19,

2007.

     Respondent’s position was substantially justified when the

notice of deficiency was issued if, in view of all the facts and

circumstances, it appears justified to a degree that would

satisfy a reasonable person.    Under that test, respondent has not

shown his position was substantially justified.   While

petitioner’s refusal to provide copies of his returns was itself

not entirely reasonable, the more compelling fact is that by the

September 19, 2007, mailing of the notice of deficiency, it had

been at least 3 months since respondent had accepted and

processed petitioner’s 2003 and 2004 returns.   The examining

agent’s inability to verify petitioner’s claims by consulting

respondent’s own records was not reasonable under the

circumstances.   Moreover, we are not persuaded that petitioner’s

providing copies of his returns would have satisfied the

examining agent.   The agent’s own notes confirm this point.    On

September 28, 2007, she wrote:    “The ‘03, 4 returns with sch. C

will not prove that he reported the income.   According to IDRS,

the income was not reported.”



     2
      Petitioner filed his 2003 and 2004 returns on Jan. 5 and 9,
2007, respectively. Respondent recorded a $906 assessment on the
basis of the 2003 return on Mar. 5, 2007, and a zero assessment
on the basis of the 2004 return on June 11, 2007.
                              - 15 -

     We therefore conclude that respondent has failed to show

that his position in the notice of deficiency concerning

petitioner’s failure to report all income for 2003 and 2004 was

substantially justified.   Similarly, we conclude that

petitioner’s refusal to provide copies of his 2003 and 2004

returns did not unreasonably protract the proceedings.

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to recover reasonable

administrative costs related to this issue.

     As for litigation costs, respondent filed an answer on

February 7, 2008, wherein he maintained the position that

petitioner had failed to report all income for 2003 and 2004.

Respondent had almost 5 additional months after issuing the

notice of deficiency until he filed the answer.    Moreover,

respondent admitted in the answer that the 2003 and 2004 returns

had been filed, reflecting his awareness of them.    Respondent’s

Appeals officer conceded some 4 months after the answer’s filing

that respondent “[made] an error in not reviewing the returns you

filed.”   For the same reasons previously discussed, we conclude

that respondent has failed to show that his position in the

answer concerning petitioner’s failure to report all income for

2003 and 2004 was substantially justified.    Accordingly,

petitioner is also entitled to recover reasonable litigation

costs insofar as they relate to his 2003 and 2004 taxable years.
                              - 16 -

II.   Recoverable Costs

      Under section 7430(c)(1), the term “reasonable litigation

costs” “includes” reasonable court costs, sec. 7430(c)(1)(A);

reasonable expenses of expert witnesses in connection with a

court proceeding, sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(i); the reasonable cost of

any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which

is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the

party’s case, sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(ii); and reasonable fees paid or

incurred for the services of an attorney in connection with the

court proceeding, sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).   Moreover, this Court

has held that the use of the term “includes” in section

7430(c)(1) is to be construed broadly.   Dunaway v. Commissioner,

124 T.C. 80, 91 (2005).   Therefore, a prevailing party may

recover substantiated costs for certain other expenses incurred

on account of the litigation, such as costs for postage and

delivery, as well as mileage and parking.    Id.

      Reasonable litigation costs also encompass the costs

incurred to litigate a claim for administrative and litigation

costs.   See, e.g., Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1149

(9th Cir. 1992), affg. in part and revg. in part on other grounds

T.C. Memo. 1991-144; Powell v. Commissioner, 891 F.2d 1167, 1170

(5th Cir. 1990), revg. 91 T.C. 673 (1988); Dixon v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2006-97; Han v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-386.
                               - 17 -

     Section 7430(c)(2) provides that reasonable administrative

costs “means” any administrative fees or similar charges imposed

by the Internal Revenue Service, sec. 7430(c)(2)(A), and any

expenses, costs, and fees described in section 7430(c)(1)(B) (as

described supra).    Notably, section 7430(c)(2) defines reasonable

administrative costs by using the term “means”, rather than

“includes”, and the range of recoverable administrative costs is

therefore limited to the costs specifically enumerated in the

statute.    See Dunaway v. Commissioner, supra at 92.

     For purposes of section 7430, attorney’s fees include fees

for the services of an individual (whether or not an attorney)

who is authorized to practice before the Tax Court or before the

Internal Revenue Service.    Sec. 7430(c)(3).

     Finally, an award of administrative or litigation costs may

only be made for costs which are allocable to the United States

and not to any other party.    Sec. 7430(b)(2).

     A.    Services of Mrs. Burgess

     Petitioner claims $28,400 in “paralegal services”

representing the claimed value of Mrs. Burgess’ time spent

preparing his case for this proceeding and negotiating with

respondent during the course of the administrative proceeding.

While a prevailing party may recover reasonable fees paid for the

services of an attorney or a nonattorney authorized to practice

before the Tax Court or the Internal Revenue Service, Mrs.
                              - 18 -

Burgess is neither.   The value of Mrs. Burgess’ services is

therefore not recoverable as attorney’s fees under section 7430.

See Guyan Oil Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-486; see

also Frisch v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 838, 844-846 (1986).

     B.   Postage, Delivery, Mileage, and Parking Costs

     Petitioner claims various costs for postage and delivery, as

well as mileage for travel to the post office in order to mail

and retrieve correspondence related to his case.   Because these

costs are not encompassed by the narrower definition of

reasonable administrative costs, petitioner is not entitled to

recover any of these costs paid before September 22, 2007, the

date on which petitioner picked up the notice of deficiency.    The

schedule below sets forth the amounts petitioner claims he is

entitled to recover for postage and delivery costs, and for the

mileage he incurred, on or after September 22, 2007:
                              - 19 -

            Type of                               Mileage     Cost
  Date        Cost              Purpose           Claimed   Claimed

9/22/07    Mileage      Pick up at post office
                          notice of deficiency     18.5       -0-
10/18/07   Mileage &    Abatement request &
             postage      travel to post office    18.5     $5.21
11/23/07   Mileage &    FOIA request & travel
             postage      to post office           18.5      5.21
11/28/07   Mileage &    FOIA request & travel
             postage      to post office           18.5      5.21
12/6/07    Mileage,     Tax Court petition fee,
             postage,     postage, & travel to
             & fee        post office              18.5     70.45
3/19/08    Mileage &    FOIA request & travel
             postage      to post office           18.5      5.62
5/27/08    Mileage      Pick up at post office
                          notice setting case
                          for trial                18.5       -0-
8/20/08    Mileage &    Mailing of letter to
             postage      IRS attorney & travel
                          to post office           18.5      5.32
10/15/08   Mileage &    Mailing of stipulation
             postage      of facts & travel to
                          post office              18.5      6.07
10/21/08   Mileage &    Mailing of pretrial
             postage      memo to court,
                          service on
                          respondent, & travel
                          to post office           18.5     21.90
10/27/08   Mileage &    Travel to court for
             parking      hearing                  30.0      5.00
                              - 20 -

     With the exception of the $5 parking fee to attend the

hearing on his motion, petitioner has provided receipts to

substantiate all the claimed postage and delivery costs; i.e.,

the mailing expenses and the petition filing fee.

     With respect to mileage, respondent argues that petitioner’s

mileage for trips to the post office could not be accurate

because petitioner indicated that he traveled to several

different post office locations, yet identical mileage is claimed

for all such trips.   We find that the mileage petitioner claimed

for post office trips to either send or receive mail related to

this case is reasonable.3

     Respondent further argues that postage costs for

petitioner’s FOIA requests and for his abatement request are not

recoverable because they are not properly allocable to

respondent.   The essence of respondent’s argument with respect to

the FOIA requests appears to be that it would have been more

appropriate for petitioner to seek information from respondent

through discovery, rather than by filing FOIA requests, and that

petitioner’s FOIA requests were excessive; for example,

petitioner made two such requests only 5 days apart.




     3
      The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that at least
three post offices are approximately equidistant from the address
petitioner used in the petition.
                                - 21 -

     We conclude that the costs petitioner claims are not

inappropriate or poorly conceived.       Petitioner claims, and

respondent does not dispute, that petitioner submitted the FOIA

request in order to obtain documentation from respondent that he

hoped would aid him in preparing his case.      We note that much of

the documentary evidence in the record was offered by petitioner,

not respondent.     Moreover, petitioner’s postage and post office

travel would have been comparable had he used discovery rather

than FOIA requests.    We therefore reject respondent’s contention

they are not properly allocable to respondent, with one

exception:    the costs associated with petitioner’s abatement

request.   Respondent contends that petitioner’s abatement request

was premature, and we agree.    Therefore, those costs are not

properly allocable to respondent and may not be recovered by

petitioner.    See sec. 7430(b)(2).

     We shall allow petitioner his costs for the filing of the

petition, as well as postage for mailings made on November 23 and

28 and December 6, 2007, and March 19, August 20, and October 15

and 21, 2008, as listed in the table above.       We shall also allow

petitioner to recover his mileage costs at the prevailing rate

for 196.5 miles.4    Further, we are satisfied that, in the


     4
      For 2007 taxpayers were allowed to claim 48.5 cents per
mile driven for business purposes. Rev. Proc. 2006-49, sec.
5.01, 2006-2 C.B. 936, 938. For 2008 taxpayers were allowed to
claim 50.5 cents per mile driven for business purposes. Rev.
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 22 -

circumstances, petitioner’s claim of a $5 parking fee for the day

of the hearing on his motion is adequately substantiated.   See

Malamed v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-1 (invoking the rule in

Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), to approximate

litigation costs); sec. 1.274-5T(c)(4), Temporary Income Tax

Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46022 (Nov. 6, 1985).

     C.    Miscellaneous Expenses

     Petitioner further claims the following administrative or

litigation costs relating to his 2003 and 2004 taxable years:

         Date            Type of Expense                Amount

   7/7/07        Books purchased by Mrs. Burgess        $69.60
   7/11/07       Books purchased by Mrs. Burgess         29.62
   10/26/08      Office supplies, ink cartridges, &
                   paper                                 51.03
   Unknown       Office supplies, ink cartridges, &
                   paper                                 68.97


     Petitioner contends that Mrs. Burgess purchased books in

order to educate herself about the IRS examination process.      The

books were purchased in July 2007, during the examination of

petitioner’s returns, and they are therefore properly

characterized as administrative costs, rather than litigation

costs.    Section 7430(c)(2) makes no allowance for the recovery of


     4
      (...continued)
Proc. 2007-70, sec. 5.01, 2007-2 C.B. 1162, 1164. Petitioner
drove 74 miles in 2007 and 122.5 miles in 2008; therefore, he may
recover $97.75 for mileage.
                              - 23 -

costs such as educational materials or books on IRS procedure as

administrative costs.   Petitioner is therefore not entitled to

recover the cost of the books.

     Petitioner has failed to substantiate the claimed $68.97

office supplies expenditure and is therefore not entitled to

recover it as a reasonable litigation cost.    Petitioner did,

however, provide a receipt for $51.03 of office supplies, dated 2

days before the hearing on his motion.    Respondent argues that

petitioner failed to establish that the costs of these supplies

are litigation costs.   We disagree.   Petitioner credibly

testified that he used the office supplies to print out a variety

of exhibits he sought to introduce at the hearing on his motion.

Petitioner may therefore recover this item.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                       An appropriate order and

                                 decision will be entered.
