Robert M. and Paulette G. Maddox - Page 19

                                                - 19 -                                                  

                                 *    *    *    *    *    *    *                                        
                        As a legal matter, the petitioners were required to                             
                  substantiate the deductions claimed on their returns.  As a                           
                  factual matter, the information available to respondent at                            
                  the time of Answer was that, although the representative                              
                  prepared petitioners’ returns and was in possession of the                            
                  records which he used to prepare the returns, the                                     
                  representative failed to communicate with the Agent in order                          
                  for those records to be inspected.5  Respondent submits                               
                  that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable for                                
                  respondent to answer the case and require petitioners to                              
                  submit their substantiation for review before respondent                              
                  conceded the adjustments.                                                             
                                 *    *    *    *    *    *    *                                        
                  ______________                                                                        
                        3  Moreover, the file reflected that, considering the                           
                        circumstances, the Agent had not been unreasonable in                           
                        exploring the possibility of extending the statutes of                          
                        limitations.                                                                    
                                 *    *    *    *    *    *    *                                        
                        5  Respondent does not argue that it was unreasonable                           
                        of petitioners’ representative to decline to extend the                         
                        statute of limitations.  Rather, it is respondent’s                             
                        position that the substantiation could have been                                
                        provided beginning April 23, 1996, allowing                                     
                        consideration prior to the issuance of the statutory                            
                        notice.  * * *                                                                  
            Petitioners maintain as follows:                                                            
                  1. Respondents [sic] denial of substantially all of                                   
                  Petitioners’ deductions on their 1991 and 1992 individual                             
                  income tax returns was not substantially justified because                            
                  Respondent did not have a basis in both fact and law for the                          
                  disallowance at the time Respondent issued the notice of                              
                  deficiency or during the litigation of this case.                                     
                  2. Petitioners are entitled to an award for administrative                            
                  and litigation costs [see supra note 1] under I.R.C. Section                          
                  7430 since Respondent’s position was not substantially                                
                  justified either when Respondent issued the notice of                                 
                  deficiency or during the litigation of this case.                                     
                                 *    *    *    *    *    *    *                                        
                  Respondent’s position did not have a reasonable basis in                              
                  both fact and law because Respondent had no information                               



Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011