- 9 -
alone. We agree with respondent that petitioners did not provide
to respondent all relevant information under their control on or
before the date respondent filed the answer.
Moreover, after reviewing the extracts from Appeals Officer
Chinen’s Appeals closing memorandum, which explains respondent’s
position, it is clear that respondent’s position in the answer
had a reasonable basis in both fact and law that could satisfy a
reasonable person. The dealer in real estate issue was a close
factual issue, as evidenced by its 50/50 settlement. In
addition, with respect to the issue of losses petitioners
claimed, the Appeals closing memorandum demonstrates that the
adjustments were reasonable, and errors were attributable to the
complexity of the Code provisions. Respondent has established
that respondent’s position was substantially justified, and,
accordingly, we do not treat petitioners as the prevailing party.
See sec. 7430(c)(4)(B)(i).
After concluding that petitioners were not the prevailing
party, we need not consider whether petitioners exhausted their
administrative remedies or whether the costs petitioners claimed
are reasonable. See Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 497.
We have considered the remaining arguments of both parties
for results contrary to those expressed herein and, to the extent
not discussed above, find those arguments to be irrelevant, moot,
or without merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011