- 23 -23
the statements made by Lawrence and Abraham at the summons
conferences, to constitute reasonable explanations, particularly
in view of the extent and magnitude of the transactions, the
inconsistent statements made concerning interest, and the
complete lack of any corroborating documentation on the point.
After listening to 2 days of testimony and reviewing
literally thousands of pages of exhibits, the Court still has not
heard a reasonable explanation for the transactions occurring
between Abraham and Lawrence. If the transactions represented
loans between the two, the loans were not reflected as such on
any documents.
The fact that Appeals Officer Hill accepted Haddad's
transfer report as support that neither Abraham nor Lawrence
realized taxable income from the various bank transactions
occurring between the two is certainly not conclusive that Agent
Red's adjustments and the position of respondent that resulted
therefrom were unreasonable. We have many times stated that the
Commissioner's concession of an issue does not necessarily lead
to a finding that her position was not substantially justified.
See, e.g., Wilfong v. United States, 991 F.2d 359, 364 (7th Cir.
1993); Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 760, 765 (1989); Wasie v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 962, 968-969 (1986). Furthermore, in this
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011