- 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