- 7 -
position has a reasonable basis in fact if there is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion. Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 564-565. The
determination of reasonableness is based on those "available
facts which formed the basis for the position taken * * * during
the litigation, as well as upon any legal precedents related to
the case." Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 443.
Although this Court may determine the reasonableness of
respondent's position with respect to each adjustment in the
notice of deficiency independently, both parties make their
respective arguments for all of the adjustments in the notice of
deficiency collectively. Thus, we need not determine whether to
apportion the award between those adjustments for which
respondent was, and those adjustments for which respondent was
not, substantially justified. Cf. Swanson v. Commissioner, 106
T.C. 76, 87-92 (1996).
The fact that respondent eventually loses or concedes a case
does not by itself establish that the position taken is
unreasonable. Swanson v. Commissioner, supra at 94. However, it
is a factor that remains to be considered. Estate of Perry v.
Commissioner, 931 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1991).
To decide whether respondent's position was substantially
justified, the Court must first identify the point in time at
which respondent is considered to have taken a position and then
decide whether the position taken from that date forward was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011