- 24 -
account of" in an earlier version of the operative statute, we
think that respondent's position was reasonable, both at the time
that the notice of deficiency was issued in March 1993 and at the
time that the Answer was filed in June 1993. See Pierce v.
Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)(the Commissioner's position
must have a reasonable basis in law).
In view of the foregoing, we reject petitioners' first
contention.
F. Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment
Petitioners also contend that respondent was unreasonable in
"refus[ing] to submit the case for decision by way of summary
judgment". We disagree.
Petitioners' contention overlooks a number of matters.
First, the Court denied petitioners' motion for summary judgment
principally because of a record so incomplete that a rational
disposition of the case was not possible. Because petitioners
were the moving party, petitioners bore responsibility for
ensuring that the record provided a basis for their motion.
Second, the Court also denied petitioners' motion for
summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact appeared
to be in dispute. Here we recall that in an effort to more
clearly determine this matter, the Court had directed the parties
to stipulate facts, and the Court even continued the original
hearing on petitioners' motion for that purpose. Respondent's
counsel complied with this directive by preparing stipulations of
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011