- 20 -
deficiency, reminded Appeals Officer Brush that the Commissioner
had the burden of proving actual knowledge, and cited the Opinion
of this Court in Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279 (2001), in
support of her position that she was entitled to relief under
section 6015(c). Petitioner also stated that there was no
fraudulent transfer of any assets and reiterated her offer to
provide any additional information that the Appeals Office might
require.
The Appeals Office issued its notice of determination
approximately 2 months later. The record does not disclose any
effort by the Appeals Office to request any additional factual
information from petitioner or to pose any questions to
petitioner after the July 22, 2002, letter and before the notice
of determination was issued on September 10, 2002. Respondent
had an opportunity to obtain any additional information he felt
he needed during the administrative proceeding, but he did not
request any additional information from petitioner until the
discovery phase of this case. Respondent’s claim, in response to
petitioner’s motion, that he did not have sufficient information
when he filed his answer and that the lack of information was
somehow petitioner’s fault is not sufficient justification for
respondent’s litigating position under the circumstances. See
Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 473 (1993) (Commissioner’s
position was not substantially justified because it had no
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011