- 13 -
establishes that the position of the United States
in the proceeding was substantially justified.
The amendments are effective with respect to "proceedings
commenced after [July 30, 1996]". TBR2, secs. 701(d), 702(b),
703(b), and 704(b), 110 Stat. 1464.
We first consider whether TBR2 applies in this case. The
petition was filed on May 16, 1994, and the motion for costs was
filed on January 2, 1997. If the "proceeding" were commenced
with the filing of the petition, then section 7430 as amended by
TAMRA would apply and petitioner would be required to establish
that respondent's position was not substantially justified.
However, if the "proceeding" were commenced with the filing of
petitioner's motion for costs, then section 7430 as amended by
TBR2 would apply, and respondent must establish that respondent's
position was substantially justified. As discussed below, we
conclude that for purposes of the effective date provisions of
TBR2, a court "proceeding" is commenced upon the filing of a
petition under section 6213 for redetermination of a deficiency.
See Schlicher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-163; Austin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-157. (We leave for another day the
issue of when administrative proceedings are commenced for
purposes of the effective date provisions of TBR2, as such
determination is unnecessary for the disposition of this matter.
Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, the term "proceeding(s)"
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011