With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit to examine “the overall statutory scheme of the [Internal Revenue] Code, the case law, and [I.R.C. Section] 6501(c)(1)’s historical roots.” Id. at 1342. For these reasons the court has determined that the complex, novel, and difficult issues presented warrant an increase to $400 an hour for partner time and $250 an hour for associate time. The Government, however, insists that BASR cannot recover any supplemental fees at a rate above the statutory maximum, because I.R.C § 7430 requires a separate showing of a “special factor” to justify an increased rate for supplemental fees incurred with respect to the fee litigation, apart from any special factors affecting the underlying tax litigation. Gov’t Supp. Resp. at 4 (citing Powers v. Comm’r, 43 F.3d 172, 183 (5th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>)). In this case, the court has determined that

A: holding that fees may be awarded for litigating amount of fees only where language of statute supports such conclusion
B: holding that a court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees under the eaja but is not required to make an award in all cases where a party seeks supplemental or increased fees
C: holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate
D: holding that higher rate would not be awarded for supplemental fees because there was no showing that any special factor justifies an increased rate for litigating the attorney fees motion
D.