- 20 - to Rev. Rul. 74-150, 1974-1 C.B. 241 (which concluded that unnecessary, albeit erroneous, information contained on a Form 2553 did not adversely effect the validity of the election), and also contrary to the line of cases addressing the effective dates of S corporation elections in situations where the taxpayers omitted essential information from Forms 2553. Returning the Form 2553 was consistent with the instructions in the manual, which instructions were consistent with the body of law previously discussed, see supra pp. 15-17, and cannot be considered unreasonable under the circumstances. We have observed in numerous opinions that the Commissioner's concession of an issue is not determinative of whether the Commissioner's position in the proceeding was substantially justified, Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 760, 767 (1989); Wasie v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 962, 968-969 (1986), but merely a factor to be considered, Estate of Perry v. Commissioner, 931 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1991). After considering the surrounding circumstances, we find that petitioner has failed to establish that respondent's position disallowing the NTI passthrough loss claimed by petitioner and Mrs. Dugan in 1991 (a portion of which was carried back to 1988) because NTI's S corporation election was not effective until 1993 was not substantially justified. Consequently, petitioner cannot be considered a prevailing party within the meaning of section 7430(a).Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011