- 15 -
levy issue. Accordingly, we hold that the wrongful
levy issue was the most nearly central to her case.
Having prevailed on the wrongful levy issue, Wilkerson
has prevailed as to the most significant issue in the
case.
We have not found, and petitioners have not directed our
attention to, any element in the instant case that plays a role
similar to the significance of the “wrongful levy” issue in
Wilkerson.
In the instant case, the parties have chosen by stipulation
to conflate all the different disputes--large, small, and
trivial--into one abuse of discretion issue. In accordance with
the parties’ stipulation, we have evaluated the bits and pieces
of the claimed abuse of discretion and concluded that by any
reasonable measure of significance it was respondent and not
petitioners who substantially prevailed on the most significant
issue or issues presented. Accordingly, the instant case is
properly distinguishable from Huckaby and Wilkerson. Under these
circumstances, we need not, and we do not, examine into the
analysis presented in Scrimgeour v. Internal Revenue, 149 F.3d
318, 326-329 (4th Cir. 1998), relating to whether section 7430
applies to disputes of the sort presented in Huckaby.
We hold for respondent on this issue. Sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(i)(II).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011