- 9 -
Court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Secunda v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1977-185.
Martin contends that Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.
142 (1988); and Estate of DuPuy v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 918
(1967), establish that we lack jurisdiction. We disagree. In
those cases, after the 90-day period for filing a petition
expired, motions were filed to amend the petitions to contest
deficiencies for taxpayers or tax years omitted from the original
petitions. The instant case is distinguishable because, here,
the petition stated that Martin contested the deficiency that
resulted from his and Rothhammer’s investment in
Elektra/Hemisphere, which was the same deficiency described in
the notice of deficiency sent to Rothhammer and attached to the
original petition. We conclude that neither Rule 34(b)(8) nor
the cases cited by Martin establish that respondent’s position
was not substantially justified because a copy of the notice of
deficiency sent to him was not attached to the petition.
4. Conclusion
Respondent had a reasonable basis in law and fact for the
position that Martin authorized Berg to sign and file the
petition on his behalf when respondent filed the answer and
throughout the judicial proceeding.6
6 We need not decide whether the number of hours billed by
Martin’s counsel and accountant and Martin’s other litigation
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011