- 20 - about the case and had made no attempt to obtain information about the case prior to adopting the position at issue. Respondent failed to diligently investigate this case. We agree with petitioners’ conclusion. 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. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. at 442. The position of the United States is the position taken by respondent in this proceeding. Sec. 7430 (c)(7)(A). Respondent’s position is that which is set forth in the answer filed with the Court on November 21, 1996. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. at 442. Substantially justified is defined as “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person” and having a “reasonable basis both in law and fact”. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); Nalle v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-182. Respondent’s position may be incorrect and yet be substantially justified “if a reasonable person could think it correct”. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. at 566 n.2. Whether respondent acted reasonably in the instant case ultimately turns on the available information which formed the basis for the position taken in the answer, as well as on any legal precedents related to the case. Nalle v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d at 191-192; Coastal Petroleum Refiners v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 685, 688 (1990).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