- 9 -
determination in the notice of deficiency; it is whether
respondent had a basis in fact for that position. We may
consider evidence not offered at trial in deciding a motion
for litigation costs. Rules 231, 232; see Rule 34(b) (taxpayer
may not claim litigation costs in petition); Rule 70(a)(2) (no
discovery relevant to litigation costs without leave of Court
before hearing set on motion for litigation costs).
Respondent relied on RMA and Occupational Outlook Handbook
data to determine petitioner's reasonable compensation for
officers. This case is different from Powers v. Commissioner,
supra at 472, in which the Commissioner determined a deficiency
without considering any information about the case.
Respondent did not call any expert witnesses. However,
even without an expert at trial, we believe respondent's position
had a basis in fact.
c. Respondent's Basis in Law
The parties generally agreed about the factors courts have
used to decide whether compensation is reasonable, but disagreed
on how the factors applied to this case. Petitioner does not
contend that respondent did not have a reasonable basis in law.
We conclude respondent had a reasonable basis in law.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011