BOCA Construction, Inc. - Page 5

                                                - 5 -                                                   

            requirement.  We need not decide this issue because we conclude                             
            that respondent's position was substantially justified.                                     
                  A taxpayer has the burden of proving that it meets each                               
            requirement before the Court may order an award of administrative                           
            and litigation costs under section 7430.  Rule 232(e); Estate of                            
            Johnson v. Commissioner, 985 F.2d 1315, 1318 (5th Cir. 1993);                               
            Gantner v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 192, 197 (1989), affd. 905 F.2d                            
            241 (8th Cir. 1990).                                                                        
                  A taxpayer must establish that the position of the United                             
            States in the litigation was not substantially justified to be                              
            entitled to an award for administrative or litigation costs.                                
            Sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(i).  The position of the United States is the                            
            position taken by respondent:  (a) In the judicial proceeding,                              
            and (b) in the administrative proceeding as of the earlier of,                              
            (i) the date the taxpayer receives the notice of the decision                               
            of the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals, or (ii) the                              
            date of the notice of deficiency.  Sec. 7430(c)(7).  Here,                                  
            respondent's position in the notice of deficiency, the answer,                              
            throughout trial, and posttrial briefs, was that petitioner paid                            
            unreasonable compensation to its officers.  Thus, respondent's                              
            position in both the judicial and the administrative proceeding                             
            was that taken in the notice of deficiency.                                                 
            2.    Whether Respondent's Position That Petitioner Paid                                    
                  Unreasonable Compensation to its Officers Was Substantially                           
                  Justified                                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011