Joseph M. Inman - Page 6

                                                 - 6 -                                                    
            costs requested are reasonable, sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).                                      
                  Petitioner argues, among other things, that respondent acted                            
            unreasonably and that respondent’s refusal to acknowledge Dragna                              
            as petitioner’s representative prevented petitioner from                                      
            establishing the deductibility of the $17,862 claimed farming                                 
            loss and prevented petitioner from raising, prior to the week of                              
            the scheduled trial, his argument as to the nontaxable nature of                              
            the $20,075 erroneously reported as income on the 1988 return.                                
            Based on the above arguments, petitioner argues that respondent’s                             
            position was not substantially justified and that his motion for                              
            an award of $5,000 in administrative and litigation costs under                               
            section 7430 should be granted.                                                               
                  Respondent argues that, in light of petitioner’s failure to                             
            raise until one week before the scheduled trial the nontaxable                                
            nature of the reported income, her position herein, during the                                
            administrative proceedings and up to the time of settlement, was                              
            substantially justified.  Respondent notes that the deductibility                             
            of the $17,862 claimed farming loss has never been established by                             
            petitioner, that it was not allowed in the settlement, and that                               
            petitioner obviously does not qualify as a prevailing party with                              
            regard thereto.  Respondent notes further that petitioner never                               
            established Dragna's authority to represent petitioner although                               
            respondent gave petitioner and Dragna every opportunity to do so.                             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011