- 14 -
457, 471 (1993), affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded on
another issue 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1995).
As relevant herein, the position of the United States that
must be examined against the substantial justification standard
with respect to the recovery of administrative costs is the
position taken by the Commissioner as of the date of the notice
of deficiency. See sec. 7430(c)(7)(B). The position of the
United States that must be examined against the substantial
justification standard with respect to the recovery of litigation
costs is the position taken by the Commissioner in the answer to
the petition. See Bertolino v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d 759, 761
(9th Cir. 1991), affg. an unpublished decision of this Court;
Sher v. Commissioner, supra at 134-135. Ordinarily, we consider
the reasonableness of each of these positions separately. See
Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1144-1147 (9th Cir.
1992), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding on other issues
T.C. Memo. 1991-144. We necessarily follow this approach here
because respondent’s positions were different in the
administrative and litigation proceedings.
We begin with the position taken by respondent in the
notice of deficiency.
Respondent contends that the notice of deficiency was issued
“because petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary
substantiation of her entitlement to the disallowed dependency
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011