- 2 -
other section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent has filed a response to petitioners' motion.
Respondent agrees that petitioners: (a) Have substantially
prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy, (b) meet the
net worth requirements as provided by law, (c) have exhausted
their administrative remedies, (d) have not unreasonably
protracted the administrative or Court proceedings, and (e) have
claimed a reasonable amount of costs.
Respondent does not agree, however, that his positions in
the administrative or Court proceedings were not substantially
justified. The issue for decision, therefore, is whether
respondent's positions in the underlying proceedings were
substantially justified.
Although petitioners initially requested a hearing in this
case, the parties have agreed upon a stipulation of facts. We
conclude that a hearing is not necessary to decide this motion.
See Rule 232(a)(2). Accordingly, we rule on petitioners' motion
for administrative and litigation costs on the basis of the
parties' submissions and the record in this case.
Petitioners resided in Shasta Lake, California, at the time
they filed their petition.
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