- 19 -
notices of deficiency to petitioner and forced her to litigate
her tax liabilities. Instead, respondent helped petitioner to
prepare the returns she belatedly filed on March 29, 2001, abated
the amounts previously assessed, and assessed the amounts
petitioner showed on the returns she prepared. At no point in
the administrative process did respondent maintain that the
notices of deficiency were sent to petitioner’s last known
address.
In the proceedings before the Court, respondent was
substantially justified. Respondent formally took a position in
the proceedings before the Court when he filed the notice of no
objection to petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. See Bertolino v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d 759, 761
(9th Cir. 1991). For purposes of section 7430 and the question
whether respondent’s position was substantially justified,
respondent is given a reasonable period of time to resolve
factual issues after receiving all relevant information. Sokol
v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 765 n.10; Johnson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-542. In the matter before us, respondent never
took the position that the notices of deficiency were mailed to
petitioner’s last known address. Respondent did not file an
answer disputing petitioner’s contention or otherwise contend
that the notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioner’s last
known address. Respondent investigated the matter and
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