- 10 -
respondent was not, substantially justified. See Powers v.
Commissioner, 51 F.3d 34, 35 (5th Cir. 1995); Swanson v.
Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 102 (1996). In the instant case, both
parties make their respective arguments for all the adjustments
in the notice of deficiency collectively. Thus, we do not
determine whether to apportion the awards, if any, between those
adjustments for which respondent was, or was not, substantially
justified.
In deciding this issue, we must identify the point in time
at which the United States is first considered to have taken its
position, and then decide whether the position from that point
forward was substantially justified. The "substantially
justified" standard is applied as of the separate dates that
respondent took a position in the administrative proceedings as
distinguished from the proceedings in this Court. See sec.
7430(c)(7)(A) and (B).
The administrative position of respondent means the position
taken in the administrative proceedings as of the earlier of the
date of receipt of the appeals decision by the taxpayer or the
date of the notice of deficiency. See sec. 7430(c)(7)(B). In
this case, respondent took a position in the administrative
proceeding as of April 30, 1998, the date the notice of
deficiency was issued. See sec. 7430(c)(7)(B)(ii).
The position taken by the United States, for purposes of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011