- 21 -
Petitioner also contends that it was unreasonable for
respondent not to sever the filing status and dependency
exemption issues from the earned income credit issue and allow
petitioner an earned income credit irrespective of having a
“qualifying child”. See sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii). Yet petitioner
also tells us (in arguing that an award of costs of $15,222 is
reasonable) that the three issues are “interrelated”. In any
event, petitioner’s contention again ignores the fact that the
allowance of an earned income credit, whether or not based on a
“qualifying child”, requires factual determinations.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that respondent’s position
in the administrative and court proceedings was substantially
justified. In so holding, we have considered other arguments
made by petitioner for a contrary result and found those
arguments to be without merit.
C. Remaining Requirements of Section 7430
Because respondent’s position in the administrative and
court proceedings was substantially justified, we need not decide
whether petitioner exhausted her administrative remedies, whether
petitioner unreasonably protracted the proceedings, or whether
7(...continued)
unreasonable for respondent not to evaluate it before issuing a
notice of deficiency. In any event, in the present case,
respondent actually evaluated information for the year in issue
obtained from the taxpayer, found it wanting, solicited
additional information, and only then, after petitioner was not
forthcoming with such additional information, issued the notice
of deficiency.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011