- 10 -
Therefore, petitioners are the prevailing party with regard to
the classification issue.7
2. Pension and Self-Employment Tax Issues
As we stated earlier, petitioners bear the burden of proving
that respondent's position was not substantially justified. Rule
232(e). Petitioners present no arguments on whether respondent's
positions regarding the pension and self-employment tax issues
were not substantially justified. Petitioners fail to meet their
burden. Therefore, petitioners are not the prevailing party with
regard to the pension and self-employment tax issues.
II. Unreasonably Protracting the Proceedings
Respondent argues that petitioners unreasonably protracted
the proceedings because petitioners conceded on brief that they
were liable for taxes on certain fringe benefits provided to them
by Allstate.
Respondent raised this issue in the answer. The trial in
the underlying case lasted only 1.5 hours, and virtually no trial
time was spent on the fringe benefits issue.
6 (...continued)
respondent's argument is without merit.
7 Respondent did not argue that this case was an
appropriate vehicle for attempting to obtain a conflict among the
circuits that would be "meaningful" within the terms of Keasler
v. United States, 766 F.2d 1227, 1237 (8th Cir. 1985). See
Mosteirin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-419. Therefore, this
issue is not before the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011