- 10 -
in part, revg. in part on other grounds, and remanding T.C. Memo.
1991-144.
Whether respondent's position was not substantially
justified turns on a finding of reasonableness, based upon all
the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal precedents
relating to the case. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988);
Sher v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 79, 84 (1987), affd. 861 F.2d 131
(5th Cir. 1988). A position is substantially justified if the
position is "justified to the degree that could satisfy a
reasonable person." Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 565; Powers v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 470-471 (1993). A position that
merely possesses enough merit to avoid sanctions for
frivolousness will not satisfy this standard; rather, the
position must have a "reasonable basis both in law and fact".
Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 564-565.
The Court must "consider the basis for respondent's legal
position and the manner in which the position was maintained".
Wasie v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 962, 969 (1986). The fact that
respondent eventually loses or concedes the case does not
establish an unreasonable position. Sokol v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. 760, 767 (1989); Baker v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 822, 828
(1984), vacated on other issues 787 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
An evaluation of the reasonableness of respondent's position and
conduct necessarily requires considering what respondent knew at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011