- 8 -
the United States in the proceeding was not substantially
justified; (2) petitioner substantially prevailed with respect to
either the amount in controversy or with respect to the most
significant issue presented; and (3) petitioner met the net worth
requirements of 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(2)(B) (1994) at the
time the petition was filed. Sec. 7430(c)(4). Respondent has
the burden of proving that the position of the United States was
substantially justified, and petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to all other requirements. See sec. 7430(c)(4)(B);
Rule 232(e); Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430,
437 (1997).
Respondent concedes that petitioner substantially prevailed
with respect to the amount in controversy, and that petitioner
met the net worth requirements. Respondent maintains, however,
that respondent’s position was substantially justified, that
petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and
that petitioner unreasonably protracted the proceedings. The
requirements of section 7430 are conjunctive; therefore, failure
to meet any one of the requirements will preclude an award of
costs. See Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492, 497 (1987).
While we have great difficulty with petitioner’s argument that
respondent’s position was not substantially justified, we do not
believe that it is necessary to reach that question. In our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011