- 16 -
date. Thus, petitioners had several opportunities to meet with
respondent in order to discuss respondent's proposed adjustments,
as well as to present any additional documentation that they had.
They simply failed to take advantage of the opportunities
respondent afforded them.13
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that petitioners are not
entitled to an award of reasonable administrative costs. As a
result of our disposition, we express no opinion as to whether
any of the remaining requirements of section 7430 have been
satisfied.14
Decision will be entered
that petitioners are not
entitled to administrative
costs.
13Mr. Conner's letter and most of the documents provided
therein were not submitted until Nov. 23, 1992, more than 2-1/2
years after the notice of deficiency had been issued. Mr.
Conner's letter also proposed Schedule C deductions for 1985 and
1987 that were in excess of the amounts petitioners had reported
on their returns for those years.
14Respondent also argues that petitioners are seeking costs
incurred in connection with a "collection action", which
respondent maintains does not constitute an "administrative
proceeding" under sec. 7430(c)(5) and sec. 301.7430-3(a)(4),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. Since we have found that petitioners have
failed to prove that the position of the United States was not
substantially justified, we leave the resolution of this question
for another day. See Ball v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-520
(also declining to reach this issue).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011