- 18 -
Although one might wish that settlement had come even
quicker, the present case is not one in which respondent adopted
an inflexible attitude concerning settlement or attempted in an
unfair manner to cause petitioner to compromise her case.
Similarly, petitioner has not shown that respondent advanced a
position that respondent knew to be factually or legally
incorrect. Further, petitioner has not shown that respondent
pursued her position for purposes of harassment or embarrassment,
or out of political motivation, or for any other improper
purpose.
In addition, and as we have already noted, 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. Petitioner
ultimately abandoned this position, as demonstrated by the fact
that the form of decision reflects a deficiency in the amount of
$24,939.21.10 Under these circumstances, we are unable to
conclude that respondent acted unreasonably in not settling the
entire case before March 1, 1996.
In summary, petitioner has not established that respondent's
position, either in the administrative proceeding or in the
10 See sec. 7459(e), which provides that if the assessment
of any tax is barred by any statute of limitations, then this
Court's decision to that effect shall be considered as its
decision that there is no deficiency in respect of such tax.
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