- 13 -
Commissioner, 900 F.2d 655, 665 (3d Cir. 1990), affg. in part and
revg. in part on other grounds 92 T.C. 510 (1989). A position is
substantially justified if the position is "justified to a degree
that could satisfy a reasonable person". Pierce v. Underwood,
supra at 565 (construing similar language in the Equal Access to
Justice Act). Thus, the Commissioner's position may be incorrect
but nevertheless be substantially justified "'if a reasonable
person could think it correct'". Maggie Management Co. v.
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 443 (1997) (quoting Pierce v.
Underwood, supra at 566 n.2).
The relevant inquiry is "whether * * * [the Commissioner]
knew or should have known that * * * [his] position was invalid
at onset". Nalle v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 189, 191 (5th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-182. We look to whether the
Commissioner's position was reasonable given the available facts
and circumstances at the time that the Commissioner took his
position. See Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, supra at
443; DeVenney v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 927, 930 (1985).
The fact that the Commissioner eventually concedes, or even
loses, a case does not establish that his position was
unreasonable. See Estate of Perry v. Commissioner, 931 F.2d
1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1991); Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 760,
767 (1989). However, the Commissioner's concession does remain a
factor to be considered. See Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011