Mark A. McCormack v. United States

891 F.2d 24, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 546, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18730
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedDecember 12, 1989
Docket20-1022
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 891 F.2d 24 (Mark A. McCormack v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark A. McCormack v. United States, 891 F.2d 24, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 546, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18730 (1st Cir. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Mark A. McCormack, a member of the bar who represented himself in tax refund proceedings, seeks a counsel fee award under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 1 *25 The district court denied the request. We believe that McCormack’s case, as a practical matter, is controlled by our decision in Aronson v. United States Dep’t of HUD, 866 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1989), wherein we ruled that an attorney-plaintiff was not entitled to fees for the time which he spent in successfully prosecuting a Freedom of Information Act claim. Id. at 4-6. The reasons undergirding Aronson seem equally valid in the case at bar, especially in light of section 7430’s limitation of awards to legal fees “paid or incurred” by an eligible taxpayer. As the Fourth Circuit has tellingly observed, an attorney who represents himself in civil tax litigation does “not pay any fees for legal services nor incur any debts” for the same. United States v. McPherson, 840 F.2d 244, 245 (4th Cir.1988).

The judgment of the district court denying appellant’s fee petition is, therefore,

Affirmed.

1

. In substance, section 7430 authorizes an award of reasonable fees "paid or incurred for the services of attorneys” in connection with certain civil tax litigation in which the government's position is determined to be unreasonable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Purdue v. NaphCare
D. Arizona, 2025
Aguilar v. Gutierrez
D. Arizona, 2025
Hale v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2023
Loring v. Daly
D. Arizona, 2020
US DEPT. OF JUSTICE, TAX DIV. v. Hudson
626 F.3d 36 (Second Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Claro
579 F.3d 452 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
In Re Hudson
345 B.R. 477 (N.D. New York, 2006)
Sorrentino v. United States
199 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Colorado, 2002)
Payne v. United States
91 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (S.D. Texas, 1999)
Overton v. United States
166 F.3d 1221 (Tenth Circuit, 1999)
Marre v. United States
Fifth Circuit, 1994

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 F.2d 24, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 546, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-a-mccormack-v-united-states-ca1-1989.