Carolyn S. Eifert, A/K/A Sue Armstrong - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
               B.  Petitioner's Net Worth                                             
               The record demonstrates that petitioner satisfies the                  
          applicable net worth requirement of sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(iii).                
          Here we note that petitioner attached to her motion for costs an            
          affidavit averring that she satisfied such net worth requirement.           
          Petitioner subsequently furnished an additional affidavit in                
          which she set forth her assets and liabilities.  Respondent has             
          never challenged or otherwise questioned either of petitioner's             
          affidavits.                                                                 
               Based on petitioner's affidavits, as well as the record as a           
          whole, we have found as a fact that petitioner's net worth did              
          not exceed $2,000,000 at the time that the petition was filed.              
          We therefore hold that petitioner satisfies the applicable net              
          worth requirement.                                                          
               C.  Conclusion                                                         
               In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner was the              
          prevailing party in both the administrative and court                       
          proceedings.                                                                
          II.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies                                  
               Respondent contends that petitioner failed to exhaust                  
          administrative remedies because petitioner failed to appeal the             
          proposed deficiency to the IRS Appeals Office as stated in the              
          30-day letter.  We disagree.                                                
               The short answer to respondent's contention is that                    
          petitioner never received the 30-day letter because the letter              




Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011