- 10 -
former section 6013. Petitioner claims that the facts on which
this Court based its opinion were open and obvious and gave no
reason for respondent to refuse to grant relief. Finally,
petitioner contends that caselaw under former section 6013(e) and
current section 6015 lead to the conclusion that relief from
joint and several liability was warranted in this case.
In making her claim for litigation costs, petitioner does
not argue that respondent was not substantially justified in
determining the amounts of the deficiencies, additions to tax,
and penalties contained in the notices of deficiency. Rather,
petitioner’s claim is based on respondent’s position with respect
to whether petitioner was entitled to relief from joint and
several liability for the deficiencies, additions to tax, and
penalties.9 Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether respondent’s
position regarding petitioner’s entitlement to such relief was
substantially justified.
In their original petitions filed in 1993 and 1994,
petitioner and Mr. Rowe disputed all the determinations contained
8(...continued)
substantial understatement; and (4) under the circumstances it
would be inequitable to hold the spouse seeking relief liable for
the substantial understatement.
9We note that petitioner’s motion specifically addresses
only the issues argued on brief by the parties and addressed by
this Court in Rowe I. Petitioner’s motion does not specifically
allege that respondent was not substantially justified with
respect to the items for which he granted petitioner relief under
sec. 6015.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011