- 6 -
in both law and fact. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 563-565
(1988). This Court will determine the reasonableness of
respondent's position as to each issue independently and
apportion the requested award between those issues for which
respondent was, and those issues for which respondent was not,
substantially justified. See, e.g., Swanson v. Commissioner, 106
T.C. 76, 87-92 (1996). Respondent concedes that his position
with respect to the cash contributions was not substantially
justified.
A. Depreciation Deductions
Respondent contends that he was substantially justified in
disallowing Salopek's depreciation deductions because petitioners
failed to provide the necessary substantiation. During the
examination, petitioners provided Agent Parker with Salopek's FY
1993, FY 1994, and FY 1995 depreciation schedules, each of which
delineated more than 100 assets. After reviewing the schedules,
Agent Parker requested that petitioners substantiate the
depreciable bases of only three assets--certain pecan trees
placed in service during 1988, 1991, and 1992. Petitioners did
not provide Agent Parker with the requisite substantiation.
Respondent then disallowed all of Salopek's depreciation
deductions. When respondent ultimately received the
substantiation for the pecan trees, however, he conceded the
issue. Respondent's position with respect to the pecan trees was
substantially justified. Respondent's position with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011