The Manchester Group and Subsidiaries, Formerly Torrey Enterprises, Inc., and Subsidiaries, Formerly Torrey Development Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 13

                                         - 13 -                                       

          unreasonable positions, "public policy" would be served by                  
          granting their Motion for Leave.                                            
               We agree that section 7430 was enacted by Congress to deter            
          unreasonable conduct by the Commissioner.  Indeed, the                      
          legislative history of section 7430 sets forth some guidelines              
          for determining whether the Commissioner's conduct was                      
               The committee intends that the determination by the                    
               court on this issue is to be made on the basis of the                  
               facts and legal precedents relating to the case as                     
               revealed in the record.  Other factors the committee                   
               believes might be taken into account in making this                    
               determination include, (1) whether the government used                 
               the costs and expenses of litigation against its                       
               position to extract concessions from the taxpayer that                 
               were not justified under the circumstances of the case,                
               (2) whether the government pursued the litigation                      
               against the taxpayer for purposes of harassment or                     
               embarrassment, or out of political motivation, and (3)                 
               such other factors as the court finds relevant.  * * *                 
               [H. Rept. 97-404, at 12 (1981).]                                       
               Petitioners' counsel intentionally delayed submitting                  
          petitioners' three motions because of his concern that a claim              
          for litigation costs might:  (1) Cause respondent to withhold               
          concession of the amounts in issue in the present case and might            
          (2) negatively influence the resolution of a dispute in a                   
          collateral matter.  Neither of these reasons constitutes good               
          cause, and in the absence of good cause, we are unwilling to                
          allow petitioners to ignore the orderly procedures of this Court            
          as embodied in Rule 162.  In short, the "public policy" of                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011