- 14 -
amount of time to verify whether the facts established by
petitioner met the conditions for relief under section 6015(c),
particularly considering that the new statute raised novel and
complex interpretive issues. See Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
760, 765 n.10 (1989). We believe that respondent’s concession
within 5 months of petitioner’s election under section 6015 was
reasonable. See Ashburn v. United States, 740 F.2d 843 (11th
Cir. 1984) (United States was substantially justified in waiting
11 months after filing of complaint in Equal Access to Justice
case, because the issues were not simple); Rouffy v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-5 (5-month delay in conceding case
was not unreasonable where amended statute raised novel issues).
c. Period After Respondent Conceded Relief Under Section
6015(c)
In Livingston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-121, we
concluded that respondent prevailed on the issue of whether he
was required to address petitioner’s election under section
6015(b) after respondent had conceded that petitioner was
entitled to relief under section 6015(c). Respondent’s position
was substantially justified in this regard. Moreover, for the
period after respondent had offered to concede that petitioner
was entitled to full relief from joint liability, petitioner
unreasonably protracted the proceedings and is therefore
ineligible for costs pursuant to section 7430(b)(3). See Mearkle
v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1256 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011