- 8 -
unreasonable." Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, supra at
443; see also Broad Ave. Laundry & Tailoring v. United States,
693 F.2d 1387, 1391-1392 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Sokol v. Commissioner
92 T.C. 760, 767 (1989). However, it remains a relevant factor
in determining the degree of the Commissioner's justification.
See Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, supra.
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 applies to a position that the United States
took in an administrative proceeding and a judicial proceeding
respectively. See sec. 7430(c)(7)(A) and (B).
The position of the United States in an administrative
proceeding means the position taken as of the earlier of the date
of the receipt by the taxpayer of the Appeals decision or the
date of the notice of deficiency. See sec. 7430(c)(7)(B). In
the present case, respondent took a position in the
administrative proceeding as of June 24, 1998, the date of the
notice of deficiency.
The position of the United States in a judicial proceeding,
for purpose of considering litigation costs, generally refers to
the position taken as of the date when the Commissioner files an
answer to a taxpayer's petition. See Maggie Management Co. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011