- 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