- 22 -
any additional information undermines his argument that, before
issuing the notice of determination or answering the petition, he
lacked the information necessary to make a determination under
section 6015(c). Moreover, respondent’s failure to analyze the
effects of his administrative and litigation position in light of
the extensive factual information petitioner had provided
supports our conclusion that respondent’s position was not
substantially justified under the circumstances. See Powers v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 473 (1993) (Commissioner’s position
was not substantially justified because it had no factual basis,
and Commissioner made no attempt to obtain relevant information
before adopting his position), affd. in part, revd. in part, and
remanded in part 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1995).
Second, in determining that petitioner had actual knowledge,
respondent failed to properly evaluate the standard for actual
knowledge articulated in King v. Commissioner, supra, and Mora v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279 (2001), in light of the extensive
information he had acquired regarding the operation of the Hoyt
partnerships. When the notice of determination was issued on
September 9, 2002, 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
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