James Tinnell - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               Although we ultimately held in favor of petitioner on the              
          section 183 issue, our conclusion regarding petitioner’s profit             
          objective was not easy.  Respondent presented facts in support of           
          his position that petitioner’s primary objective in conducting              
          his mining activity was not to make a profit, and respondent’s              
          arguments with respect to this highly fact-intensive issue were             
          reasonable and not frivolous.  Although we did not agree with               
          respondent’s arguments in the final analysis, respondent has                
          persuaded us that his position had a reasonable basis in fact and           
          law.  We hold, therefore, that respondent’s litigating position             
          regarding the section 183 issue was substantially justified and             
          that petitioner is not entitled to an award of litigation costs             
          under section 7430.                                                         
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                                  An appropriate order and            
                                             decision will be entered under           
                                             Rule 155.                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011