Joseph F. and Camille T. Uddo - Page 15

                                                                               - 15 -- 15 -                                                                                
                    Accordingly, we hold that respondent's position was substantially                                                                                      
                    justified.                                                                                                                                             
                              For similar reasons to those already discussed, we also                                                                                      
                    conclude that respondent's position respecting the accuracy-                                                                                           
                    related penalty was substantially justified.  The original                                                                                             
                    indicated omission of income was substantial, and petitioners                                                                                          
                    offered no explanation for that omission.                                                                                                              
                              The requirements of section 7430 are in the conjunctive,                                                                                     
                    Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 497, and our holding that                                                                                          
                    respondent's position was substantially justified disposes of                                                                                          
                    petitioners' motion.  Accordingly, we need not address whether                                                                                         
                    petitioners' had exhausted all the administrative remedies.10                                                                                          
                              To reflect the foregoing,                                                                                                                    


                                                                                An appropriate order will be                                                               
                                                                      issued.                                                                                              









                    10        Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish that they                                                                                  
                    exhausted the administrative remedies available to them within                                                                                         
                    the Internal Revenue Service.  See Rule 142(a).  Without ruling                                                                                        
                    on this issue, we note that petitioners have not alleged that                                                                                          
                    they requested and were denied an Appeals Office conference as                                                                                         
                    required by sec. 301.7430-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                                                                                              




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011