- 5 -
had accepted a qualified offer of the party under subsection
(g).” The qualified offer provision of section 7430(c)(4)(E)
applies without regard to whether respondent’s position in the
matter is substantially justified. See Haas & Associates
Accountancy Corp. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 48, 59 (2001), affd.
55 Fed. Appx. 476 (9th Cir. 2003); McGowan v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-80.
Respondent concedes that petitioner has exhausted the
available administrative remedies, did not unreasonably protract
the proceedings, and claims litigation costs that are reasonable.
Respondent instead argues that petitioner cannot be considered a
prevailing party under section 7430(c)(4)(E) because the offer
submitted by petitioner was not a valid qualified offer under
section 7430(g). Respondent argues that the offer was not made
with respect to all of the adjustments at issue and only those
adjustments, did not clearly specify the amount offered, and, if
accepted, would not have fully resolved petitioner’s liability
for the taxable years at issue.3
3 Respondent also argues that petitioner’s motion should be
denied because petitioner did not include an affidavit
demonstrating that he met the net worth requirements set forth in
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d)(2)(B)
(2000) at the time his petition was filed. Sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii); Rule 231. Petitioner has since filed an
affidavit with supporting exhibits that show his net worth was
$17,221 at the time his petition was filed. We find that
petitioner meets the net worth requirements of sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011