- 12 -
supra at 473. Petitioners contend that respondent’s position was
not substantially justified. We disagree for reasons stated
below.
3. Whether Respondent Had a Reasonable Basis in Fact
a. Facts Known by Respondent on January 13, 2000
Petitioners contend that, on January 13, 2000, respondent
lacked a reasonable basis in fact relating to whether petitioners
were liable for the late payment addition for 1993. We disagree.
On January 13, 2000, respondent had the following basis in
fact related to whether petitioners were liable for the addition
to tax for failure to pay tax for 1993: (i) Some debts (not
specified in the record) that petitioners had on January 14,
1992, were discharged in bankruptcy; (ii) petitioners had good
incomes at all relevant times (e.g., for 1993, adjusted gross
income of $105,060 and wages of $87,026); and (iii) other than
the amount withheld, petitioners did not pay tax for 1993 when
due.
b. Information Requested by Respondent Before
January 13, 2000, Which Petitioners Did Not
Provide
Before January 13, 2000, Gurnaby asked petitioners for
specific information which petitioners did not provide by that
date, including: (i) Canceled checks and other bank and
financial records to show how petitioners spent their income;
(ii) documents showing that petitioners were either unable to pay
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011