- 8 - substantially justified when respondent issued the notice of deficiency and when respondent filed the answer in this case. 2. Whether Respondent's Position That Petitioner Accumulated Earnings Beyond Its Reasonable Business Needs Was Substantially Justified a. Background The Equal Access to Justice Act's substantially justified standard requires that the Government's position be justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). That standard applies to motions for litigation costs under section 7430. Nicholson v. Commissioner, 60 F.3d 1020, 1026 (3d Cir. 1995), revg. T.C. Memo. 1994-280; Comer Family Equity Pure Trust v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 136, 139-140 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-316; Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 470 (1993), affd. on this issue and revd. in part and remanded on other issues 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1995). To be substantially justified, the Commissioner's position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact.2 Pierce v. Underwood, supra; Hanover Bldg. Matls., Inc. v. Guiffrida, 748 F.2d 1011, 1015 (5th Cir. 1984); Powers v. Commissioner, supra at 473. For a position to be substantially justified, there must be "substantial evidence" to support it. 2 Respondent recognizes that this is the controlling standard at issue in this case. On brief respondent states: "To determine whether respondent acted reasonably, the Court must consider whether respondent's position had a reasonable basis both in law and fact. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564 (1988); Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 470 (1993)."Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011