- 12 - customers.” The third letter does not establish that petitioner performed all or substantially all her services off the premises of her employer and does not explain whether petitioner was paid by salary or commission or some combination of the two. The letter says nothing about the extent and nature of supervision of petitioner in her work for Arch Wireless. The third letter simply does not establish whether petitioner was a common law employee or was a statutory employee during 1998. We conclude that respondent had a reasonable basis in fact and law for the position taken in the notice of deficiency. At the time of the issuance of the notice of deficiency, petitioner had not established her status as a statutory employee entitling her to report her business expense deductions on Schedule C. The fourth letter that petitioner ultimately presented to respondent confirmed the details that formed the basis of respondent’s concession to settle this matter. Petitioner did not present the fourth letter until after respondent issued the notice of deficiency. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case respondent’s position was substantially justified. Petitioner is not the prevailing party under section 7430 and is not entitled to an award of administrative costs.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011