- 13 -
Petitioner argues that respondent's position was not
reasonable as a matter of law or fact. In support of his
argument, petitioner claims he was never allowed any
administrative consideration of his case prior to issuance of the
notice of deficiency, and, therefore, when the notice of
deficiency was issued, he was compelled to petition this Court
for relief. Petitioner contends that, "if respondent had not
disregarded [his] request for an appeal's office conference, [he]
would not have incurred the added costs of preparing the Tax
Court petition and subsequent stipulation documents." He
supports this contention by alleging that, after he received the
notice of deficiency and filed his petition, he "resubmitted his
written protest" at the conference with Ms. Gerdine, and that she
thereby "determined that such expenses were adequately
documented" and allowed his claimed deductions.7 The Court
dismisses this argument. Under section 7430(c)(7), respondent's
"position" for purposes of this motion, is not considered first
7 Petitioner seems to be suggesting that the documentation he
presented to Ms. Gerdine at the appeals conference was identical
to that which he had filed with his written protest, and that, if
it was sufficient substantiation at the time of the appeals
conference, it should have been sufficient as a written protest
to prevent the issuance of a notice of deficiency. The Court
does not agree. It is clear from the record that petitioner's
written protest, prior to issuance of the notice of deficiency,
consisted of a letter that contained certain statements of fact
and arguments of law, and a few documents purporting to support
the allegations contained in the letter. The limited documentary
evidence provided was clearly insufficient to substantiate any of
the facts claimed in the letter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011