- 12 -
was substantially justified. In doing so, it eliminated any
direct reference to the “position of the United States” in
section 7430(c)(4)(A). In its current form, therefore, the
language of section 7430(c)(4)(A) only requires that the taxpayer
show that he or she substantially prevailed.8 Although the
language of section 7430(c)(4)(A) no longer mentions the
“position of the United States”, we interpret the section to
require that such a position be taken before a taxpayer can
qualify as a prevailing party.
We interpret the language of section 7430(c)(4) by examining
all subsections of section 7430. It is a central tenet of
statutory construction that, when interpreting any one provision
of a statute, the entire statute must be considered. See, e.g.,
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S.
26, 36 (1998); Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1145 (9th
Cir. 1992) (The guiding principle in analyzing the plain meaning
of section 7430 is that the entire statute must be examined as a
whole, with all of its sections and subsections in mind), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1991-144. We turn now to analyzing section
7430(c)(4).
8 In order to be a “prevailing party,” a taxpayer must also
satisfy certain net worth requirements. See sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii). The net worth requirements are not at issue,
however, in this motion for summary judgment action.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011