Darl N. and Bonnie S. Miller - Page 7




          - 7 -                                                                       
         to section 7430.  Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492 (1987);               
         Renner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-372.                                 
              Petitioners contend that they have substantially                        
         prevailed with respect to the amounts in controversy and on                  
         the most significant issue in these cases.  They further                     
         contend that they have met the net worth requirements of 28                  
         U.S.C., sec. 2412(d)(2)(B), that they have exhausted the                     
         administrative proceedings available to them within the                      
         Internal Revenue Service, and that they have not unreasonably                
         protracted the administrative or court proceedings.  They also               
         argue that the costs claimed are reasonable.                                 
              Respondent denies that petitioners have substantially                   
         prevailed with respect to the amounts in controversy and on                  
         the most significant issue in this case.  Respondent admits                  
         that petitioner, Darl N. Miller, meets the net worth                         
         requirements but denies that petitioner Bonnie S. Miller has                 
         shown that she meets the net worth requirements.  Respondent                 
         alleges that because petitioners failed to provide relevant                  
         information to the examining agent so that a 30-day letter                   
         could be issued, petitioners failed to exhaust their                         
         administrative remedies.  Respondent further alleges that by                 
         failing to submit relevant information requested by the                      
         examining agent at the administrative level, before the                      
         issuance of the statutory notice of deficiency, petitioners                  
         unreasonably protracted the proceedings in this case.                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011