- 15 -
moving party bears the burden of proof with respect to each of
the above-listed elements. Rule 232(e).
Respondent objects to petitioner's motion on several
grounds. First, respondent argues that, although the case was
ultimately conceded, respondent was substantially justified in
taking the position that NTI's S corporation election was not
effective until 1993 and that the Dugans therefore could not take
into account a passthrough loss from NTI in 1991 and carry back a
portion of that loss to 1988. Second, respondent argues that
petitioner unreasonably protracted the proceedings by not
responding to numerous letters sent to NTI or providing certain
information until February 1996. Third, respondent argues that
petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he
did not timely file a request for an Appeals conference after the
issuance of the 30-day letters. Finally, respondent argues that
the amount of costs and attorney's fees are excessive to the
extent that the hourly attorney's fees exceed the amount allowed
by section 7430, and further that all fees attributable to
petitioner's request for rescission of the notices of deficiency
should be disallowed because the request was made only days
before the petition was filed.
Substantial Justification
1. S Corporation Elections In General.
Section 1362(a)(1) allows a small business corporation, as
defined under section 1361, to elect S corporation status. An S
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011