- 9 - Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1148 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-144). Here it is not necessary to analyze respondent's position separately on each of these dates as respondent's position was the same at both times. See Swanson v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 87 (1996). In order to determine whether respondent's position in the administrative and judicial proceedings was substantially justified, we may analyze respondent's position in the context of what caused respondent to take the position. See Lennox v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 244, 247-249 (5th Cir. 1993), revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1992-382. We may also look at the manner in which respondent maintained the position. See Wasie v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 962, 969, (1986); Kahn-Langer v. Commissioner, supra. We may consider events preceding the date the notice of deficiency was issued to determine what caused respondent to take the position. See Lennox v. Commissioner, supra; Uddo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-276; Williford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-135. The reasonableness of respondent's position necessarily requires considering what respondent knew at the time the position was taken. See Rutana v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1329, 1332 (1987); DeVenney v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 927, 930, (1985); Triplett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-313.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011