Mary Lee Sharer - Page 15

                                           - 15 -                                            

          386.  For purposes of the administrative proceedings, respondent                   
          took a position on August 11, 1992, and April 7, 1993, the dates                   
          the notices of deficiency for tax years 1988 and 1989,                             
          respectively, were issued.  Sec. 7430(c)(7)(B).  For purposes of                   
          the proceeding in this Court, respondent took positions for the                    
          1988 and 1989 tax years on December 11, 1992, and August 18,                       
          1993, respectively, the dates respondent filed the answer in each                  
          of the cases.  See Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1143-                   
          1147 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. 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 a 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, it must                      
          have a "reasonable basis both in law and fact".  Pierce v.                         
          Underwood, supra at 564-565.                                                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011