- 10 - Therefore, petitioners are the prevailing party with regard to the classification issue.7 2. Pension and Self-Employment Tax Issues As we stated earlier, petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's position was not substantially justified. Rule 232(e). Petitioners present no arguments on whether respondent's positions regarding the pension and self-employment tax issues were not substantially justified. Petitioners fail to meet their burden. Therefore, petitioners are not the prevailing party with regard to the pension and self-employment tax issues. II. Unreasonably Protracting the Proceedings Respondent argues that petitioners unreasonably protracted the proceedings because petitioners conceded on brief that they were liable for taxes on certain fringe benefits provided to them by Allstate. Respondent raised this issue in the answer. The trial in the underlying case lasted only 1.5 hours, and virtually no trial time was spent on the fringe benefits issue. 6 (...continued) respondent's argument is without merit. 7 Respondent did not argue that this case was an appropriate vehicle for attempting to obtain a conflict among the circuits that would be "meaningful" within the terms of Keasler v. United States, 766 F.2d 1227, 1237 (8th Cir. 1985). See Mosteirin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-419. Therefore, this issue is not before the Court.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011