- 20 -
substantially justified". Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457,
471 (1993). This and other courts have concluded that the
substantial justification standard is essentially the prior law's
reasonableness standard couched in new language. Huffman v.
Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1147 n.8 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in
part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-144; Powers v.
Commissioner, supra at 471; Rutana v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1329,
1333 (1987).
We must identify the point at which the United States is
first considered to have taken a position, and then decide
whether the position taken from that point forward was or was not
substantially justified. The "not substantially justified"
standard is applied as of the separate dates that respondent took
positions, first in the administrative proceedings and afterwards
in the proceedings in this Court. Sec. 7430(c)(7)(A) and (B);
Han v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-386. For purposes of the
administrative proceedings in this case, respondent's position is
that which was articulated in the notice of deficiency, issued on
February 14, 1994. Sec. 7430(c)(7)(B); see Huffman v.
Commissioner, supra at 1143-1147.
For purposes of the court proceedings in this case,
respondent's position is that which is set forth in the answer to
the petition on June 20, 1994. Sec. 7430(c)(7)(A); see Huffman
v. Commissioner, supra at 1147-1148. Although ordinarily the
reasonableness of each of those positions is considered
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011