- 42 -
Petitioners reliance on Stieha v. Commissioner, supra, is
misplaced. In that case, after this Court issued a dispositive
decision that caused the Commissioner’s position to no longer be
substantially justified, the Commissioner continued to oppose the
taxpayer’s motion to dismiss, ignoring our decision. The
Commissioner ultimately conceded the case more than 4 months
after the release of our decision. Under the circumstances, we
found that the Commissioner’s “failure to review petitioners’
case in a reasonable and timely manner” caused the taxpayer to
incur “more attorneys fees than should have been necessary.”
Stieha v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 791. Here, after the issuance
of CCN 2002-21, respondent’s counsel took no steps other than to
confirm his office’s position in the consolidated cases in light
of that notice, and immediately upon being told to concede the
deductibility of the loan origination/acquisition costs at issue,
he did so.
We conclude that respondent was substantially justified in
not conceding the deductibility of the loan origination/
acquisition costs until April 19, 2002, or the deductibility of
the professional fees until he filed his trial memorandum on May
31, 2002, or, alternatively, until the Stipulation of Settled
16(...continued)
apply to awards of litigation costs in tax cases whether the
action is brought in a U.S. District Court, the Court of Claims,
or the U.S. Tax Court.” H. Rept. 97-404, at 11 (1982).
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011