- 28 -
has been granted under section 6015(b) and (c), and we are
unaware of caselaw discussing this issue. Indeed, our holding in
Rowe I represents the first instance where an electing spouse has
been granted relief under section 6015(b) or (c) for a portion of
a deficiency attributable to an item, and then granted equitable
relief under section 6015(f) for the remaining portion of the
deficiency attributable to the same item.
This was a complex case involving detailed findings of fact
and the application of relatively new legal principles to these
facts. Respondent’s position was not contrary to existing
caselaw and the language in the statute providing relief if
“taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold the individual liable” requires a decision by
the Commissioner on the basis of the particular facts of each
case. Accordingly, we find that respondent’s litigating position
with respect to section 6015(f), although ultimately incorrect,
was substantially justified.
b. Additions to Tax and Penalties
Respondent initially denied petitioner equitable relief for
the additions to tax and penalties determined in the notices of
deficiencies. On brief, the parties conceded some of the
determinations. We note that petitioner has not presented
specific arguments as to why respondent was not substantially
justified in denying, or delaying in the granting of, relief for
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011