- 2 -
1. Held: R never took a position in the
administrative proceeding as provided by sec.
7430(c)(7)(B), I.R.C., because Ps never received a
notice of decision from the Appeals Office and R never
sent Ps a notice of deficiency. Consequently, Ps do
not qualify as prevailing parties under sec.
7430(c)(4), I.R.C.
2. Held, further, the meaning of term “notice of
deficiency” under sec. 7430(c)(7), I.R.C., is the same
as its meaning under sec. 6212(a), I.R.C.
3. Held, further, the proposed notice of
deficiency that was never approved and never sent to Ps
is not a notice of deficiency for purposes of sec.
7430(c)(7), I.R.C.
James R. Mikes, for petitioners.
Michael D. Zima, for respondent.
OPINION
KROUPA, Judge: This matter is before the Court on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121.1 The
sole issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to
reasonable administrative costs under section 7430 for expenses
incurred in proceedings within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
regarding their 1993 and 1994 Federal income taxes. For the
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section,
chapter, and subtitle references are to the Internal Revenue
Code.
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