Barbara A. Owen - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          Appeals, or (ii) the date of the notice of deficiency, sec.                 
          7430(c)(7)(B); see also sec. 301.7430-3(a), (c), Proced. & Admin.           
          Regs.  In the present case, the relevant position is that taken             
          by the Appeals Office in the notice of determination dated                  
          September 9, 2002.  Sec. 7430(c)(7)(B)(i).                                  
               A court proceeding, for purposes of section 7430, means any            
          civil action brought in a court of the United States, including             
          this Court, sec. 7430(c)(6), and the “position of the United                
          States” in a court proceeding is the position taken by the                  
          Service in a judicial proceeding to which section 7430(a)                   
          applies, sec. 7430(c)(7)(A).  In this case, respondent’s                    
          litigation position is that taken in his answer to petitioner’s             
          petition.  Sec. 7430(c)(7)(A); see Huffman v. Commissioner, 978             
          F.2d 1139, 1148 (9th Cir. 1992), affg. in part, revg. in part and           
          remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-144.                                              
               Although respondent’s administrative and litigation                    
          positions are often considered separately, we may consider them             
          together if respondent maintains the same position throughout the           
          administrative and litigation process.  Huffman v. Commissioner,            
          supra at 1144-1147; Maggie Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C.              
          430, 442 (1997); Livingston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-387.           
          In the present case, respondent’s position in both the notice of            
          determination and the answer was that petitioner’s election to              
          allocate the joint liability under section 6015(c) was invalid              






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011