- 7 - penalty pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code; (2) has exhausted his administrative remedies within the IRS; and (3) did not unreasonably delay or protract the court proceedings. Respondent concedes that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies but maintains that petitioner is not a prevailing party and that he unreasonably delayed or protracted these proceedings. To be a prevailing party, a taxpayer must satisfy the applicable net worth requirements set forth in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) and must substantially prevail with respect to either the amount in controversy or the most significant issue or set of issues presented. Sec. 7430(c)(4)(A). Respondent concedes that petitioner satisfies the applicable net worth requirements and that petitioner has substantially prevailed but argues that respondent’s litigating position was substantially justified. Section 7430(c)(4)(B)(i) provides that a party shall not be treated as a prevailing party if the Commissioner establishes that his position was substantially justified. Whether the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified is to be resolved by applying a reasonableness standard. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564 (1988); Sher v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 79, 84 (1987), affd. 861 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1988). The litigating position of the Commissioner is substantially justified if the position had a reasonable basis in both fact andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011