1. Tax Court Proceedings:

   • Hull filed a motion under Rule 147 for costs of $260,413.27, based on the settlement being more favorable than his offer.
   • Tax Court awarded him $4,096.25 plus $10,403.56 in disbursements, reduced by $2,500 for the respondent’s costs??.

2. Grounds for Appeal:

   • Challenged the Tax Court's order on cost awards.
   • Rule 147's discretionary nature allows for enhanced costs when an offer of settlement yields a more favorable judgment??.

3. Tax Court Judge's Decision:

   • Declined to award costs under Rule 147(3.1) due to Hull’s non-compliance with a court order dated May 8, 2017??.
   • Noted that breaches of court orders can be considered at any time by the court??.

4. Appellant's Argument and Judge's Response:

   • Hull argued for enhanced costs due to settlement's favorability.
   • Judge determined the appropriate cost amount considering Hull’s failure to comply and the delay this caused??.

5. Federal Court of Appeal's Findings:

   • Agreed that the Tax Court Judge rightly exercised discretion in not applying Rule 147(3.1) due to Hull's non-compliance.
   • Acknowledged the potential for no cost awards in certain situations of non-compliance??.
   • Left open the question of awarding enhanced costs under Rule 147(3.1) in cases where a settlement is reached before an appeal hearing??.

Conclusion:

• Judgment: Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.
• Implications: Upheld the Tax Court's discretion in cost awards, emphasizing compliance with court orders as a key factor in such decisions??.