- 22 -
erred in determining that petitioner did not qualify for an
allocation under section 6015(c).
Respondent’s litigating position that petitioner did not
satisfy the marital status requirement of section
6015(c)(3)(A)(i) was not reasonable because respondent had
received a copy of Mr. Bulger’s death certificate more than 2
weeks before respondent’s answer was filed. Respondent’s
litigating position that petitioner had actual knowledge of the
item giving rise to the deficiency within the meaning of section
6015(c)(3)(C) was also not reasonable because respondent failed
to analyze the applicable legal principles and the factual
information he possessed before he adopted his position.
When respondent’s answer was filed on May 1, 2003, the
Service had already entered into a settlement agreement with Mr.
Hoyt and was well aware of the basis for adjusting the Hoyt
partnership items at issue in this case. See River City Ranches
#1, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-150, affd. in part,
revd. in part and remanded 401 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2005);
Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-138, affd. 389 F.3d 601
(6th Cir. 2004); Durham Farms #1, J.V. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-159, affd. 59 Fed. Appx. 952 (9th Cir. 2003);
Shorthorn Genetic Engg. 1982-2, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
15(...continued)
6015(c)(3)(C); that is, that petitioner had no actual knowledge.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011