- 26 -
reason for interpreting the term “notice of deficiency” in
section 7430(c)(7) differently from the meaning of that term
under section 6212. See Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 406
(1992); Sorenson v. Secy. of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986).
C. Conclusion
In conclusion, given that petitioners were never issued a
notice of deficiency or an Appeals Office notice, we find that
respondent never took a position for purposes of section
7430(c)(4) and that petitioners are therefore not “prevailing
parties” entitled to recover administrative costs under section
7430(a).
We have considered all of petitioners’ contentions and
arguments. To the extent any contention or argument is not
discussed, we find it to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Last modified: May 25, 2011