BASR could have offered that would have been “reasonable.” In this case, the final judgment of the court not to sustain the FPAA on the basis that the FPAA was untimely issued resulted in $0 of tax liability for BASR’s partners. Because $1 is more than $0, the court has determined that BASR’s “qualified offer” complied with I.R.C. § 74S0. 2. BASR “Incurred” The Fees Paid To Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. Because BASR is a “prevailing party,” the court must next determine whether it “incurred” attorney fees, pursuant to I.R.C. § 7430(a)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a party “incurred” fees under the EAJA, only if that party had an obligation to pay those fees. See Phillips v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 924 F.2d 1577, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). Other federal appellate courts have held
holding that incurred within the meaning of the eaja requires an express or implied arrangement that the fee will be paid over to a legal representative holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied holding that attorney fees are incurred only when there is an express or implied agreement that the fee award will be paid over to the legal representative holding that by choosing the words any actual expenses including attorneys fees incurred congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in cases such as contingent fee or pro bono cases where the client has not actually incurred the obligation to pay her attorneys fees