- 16 -
filed the answer on August 30, 1995, approximately 2-1/2 months
after petitioner and Mr. Buck submitted the filed return.
Respondent contends that she was not able to obtain the
filed return and verify the information on such return before she
filed the answer. Specifically, respondent asserts that the
filed return was not readily available to her Houston District
Counsel office because: (1) The filed return had only recently
been filed; and (2) the filed return was difficult to locate
because it was located under Mr. Buck's account, rather than
petitioner's, apparently because Mr. Buck's TIN was the "primary
TIN" and petitioner's TIN was the "spousal TIN."
We have no reason to question respondent's explanation. We
also note that the petition contained an allegation that the
purported return was "accepted" by respondent "for all purposes"
and that assessment of any deficiency against petitioner for the
taxable year 1988 was barred by the 3-year statute of
limitations. Rule 39 obligated respondent to address this
matter in the answer by way of affirmative allegations if
respondent wished to preserve the issue. Accordingly, we
conclude that respondent's position on August 30, 1995; i.e.,
that petitioner was liable for income tax for 1988, was
substantially justified.
Finally, petitioner contends that respondent took an
unreasonable amount of time to verify the information on the
filed return and settle the case. Here we recall that
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