- 3 -
I. Substantial Justification
We may award costs to petitioners where respondent’s
position was not substantially justified (i.e., did not have a
reasonable basis in law and fact). See Pierce v. Underwood, 487
U.S. 552, 563-565 (1988). “The justification for each of
respondent’s positions must be independently determined.”
Foothill Ranch Co. Partnership v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 94, 97
(1998). Respondent concedes that his position on the CFC issue
was not substantially justified. Respondent contends that his
position on the Marne issue was substantially justified, but he
offers no law or fact supporting his position. In addition,
respondent failed to contend that his position on the loss issue
was substantially justified and offers no law or fact supporting
his position. Thus, respondent has not established that his
positions were substantially justified. See Maggie Management
Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 437-438 (1997) (stating that
respondent must establish that his position was substantially
justified as to petitions filed after July 30, 1996).
II. Reasonableness of Fees and Costs
A. Attorney’s Fees
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011