Kristin J. Calitri - Page 13

                                       - 12 -                                         
          Appeals officer, after examining the documentation furnished,               
          sustained some of the adjustments in the statutory notice of                
          deficiency, but he conceded that petitioner was entitled to head            
          of household filing status, a dependency exemption, and the                 
          earned income credit.  The parties settled shortly thereafter.              
               A significant factor in determining whether the position of            
          the Commissioner is substantially justified as of a given date is           
          whether, on or before the date, the taxpayer has presented “all             
          relevant information under the taxpayer’s control and relevant              
          legal arguments supporting the taxpayer’s position to the                   
          appropriate Internal Revenue Service personnel”.  Sec. 301.7430-            
          5(c)(1), Proced. & Admin Regs.                                              
               Most of the changes to petitioner’s adjustments were based             
          on the Appeals officer’s determination that petitioner was                  
          entitled to head of household filing status, child dependency               
          exemption and earned income credit.  Petitioner did not raise any           
          of these legal arguments or provide the relevant documentation to           
          the examining agent while her returns were being examined.                  
          Therefore, respondent’s position was not unreasonable even though           
          respondent eventually conceded that petitioner is entitled to               
          certain deductions and credits.                                             
               Petitioner alleges in her motion that respondent “refused to           
          deal with [her]” unless she consented to an extension of the                
          limitations period to assess taxes.  As discussed above,                    
          respondent made numerous attempts to “deal” with petitioner,                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011