- 11 -
the Court, petitioner is not a prevailing party with respect to
the amount in issue for the year 1992. See sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(i)(I); sec. 301.7430-5(d), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Even though petitioner did not substantially prevail with
respect to the amount in controversy, he may nevertheless be the
prevailing party if he substantially prevailed with respect to
the most significant issue or set of issues presented. See sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(i)(II); sec. 301.7430-5(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
However, as will be discussed below, petitioner has not
established that he prevailed with respect to any issue before
the Court. Therefore, we need not decide which was the most
significant issue or set of issues in the case.
In his original petition, petitioner disputed the entire
amount of the deficiency and claimed an overpayment, but he did
not raise any specific issues. Therefore, based on the original
petition, the Court cannot consider properly before it any issues
other than those that formed the basis for respondent’s
determination in the notice of deficiency. Petitioner fully
conceded all substantive issues related to the deficiency
determination. Specifically, petitioner conceded that White Pine
was a passive activity and that he had failed to report income
in the amount determined by respondent. Therefore, petitioner
clearly did not prevail with respect to the issues before the
Court as raised in the original petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011