- 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