- 6 -
Court ignored the conceded section 453(l)(3) adjustments in
determining the reasonableness of respondent’s position.
To the contrary, this Court thoroughly considered
respondent’s position on the dealer in real estate issue.
Respondent’s concession of adjustments under section 453(l)(3)
flowed directly from the parties’ agreement to treat petitioner
Robert C. McKee as a dealer in real estate with respect to only
50 percent of the parcel sales. Moreover, even if respondent
settled 88 percent of the total adjustments related to the dealer
in real estate issue in favor of petitioners, that settlement
would establish only that petitioners substantially prevailed
with respect to the dealer in real estate issue. See Bowden v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-30. Whether petitioners
substantially prevailed does not affect our determination that
respondent’s position was substantially justified. See sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(i) and (B)(i).
C. Conclusion
We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and, to
the extent not discussed above, find those arguments to be
irrelevant, moot, or without merit.
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances
or substantial errors of fact or law. Accordingly, we will deny
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011