- 10 -
discretion." We find it difficult to require respondent to
concede a case when documents are missing. Moreover,
notwithstanding petitioner's allegations, there is no evidence,
nor does petitioner point to any particular instance, in which
respondent ignored documents in respondent's possession.
At the February 13, 1998 meeting, petitioner provided
documents to respondent's Appeals officer. However, at that
meeting the Appeals officer determined that additional documents
were needed. Another meeting was scheduled for March 9, 1998,
but was apparently rescheduled at petitioner's counsel's request
until March 17, 1998. Petitioner finally provided the additional
substantiation at the March 17, 1998 meeting. After respondent's
Appeals officer had an opportunity to review those additional
documents, respondent promptly conceded all of the issues in the
notice of deficiency on or before April 10, 1998.
Prior to respondent's concessions of all of the issues in
the notice of deficiency, respondent submitted to the Court a
trial memorandum pursuant to the Court's standing pre-trial
order. Petitioner argues that because respondent took the
position in the trial memorandum that petitioner's claimed
deductions were insufficiently substantiated despite having all
of the substantiation documents, respondent's position was
substantially unjustified in the trial memorandum. In essence,
petitioner contends that respondent failed to review those
documents in a timely manner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011