- 15 -- 15 -
This facsimile states specifically that Mr. Lipton's letter
incorrectly reflects respondent's settlement offer. Although
petitioners attempt in their motion to support their position of
overreaching by respondent with Mr. Lipton's naked assertions of
fact, we do not consider these assertions to be proof.
Rule 143(b); see Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 214
n.7 (1992); Viehweg v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1248, 1255 (1988);
Evans v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 704, 709 (1967), affd. 413 F.2d
1047 (9th Cir. 1969).
We conclude that respondent's positions had a reasonable
basis in law and fact. Based on this conclusion, we need not and
do not decide the reasonableness of the claimed expenses. We
note in passing, however, that we have been involved with enough
cases of this type to know that the instant case was nothing more
than a routine substantiation case, and why it was not resolved
at the scheduled meeting of June 27, 1995 (which we believe it
easily could have been), we do not know.
We hold that petitioners are not entitled to administrative
or litigation costs under section 7430. In so holding, we have
considered all arguments by petitioners for a contrary holding,
and, to the extent not discussed above, find them to be
irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued denying petitioners'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011