- 3 -
Respondent does not agree: (1) That petitioners have
exhausted their available administrative remedies within the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and (2) that petitioners are a
“prevailing party”, because (i) the qualified offer provision
does not apply, and (ii) respondent’s position in the court
proceedings was substantially justified.
The parties have not requested a hearing in this case, and
the Court concludes that a hearing is not necessary to decide
this motion. See Rule 232(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court rules
on the motion based on the parties’ submissions and the record in
this case.
Background
At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioners
resided in Los Angeles, California.
For the year in issue, petitioners were self-employed,
operating a small consulting business. Petitioners jointly filed
a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2002, which
they prepared without the assistance of a professional.
By letter dated August 10, 2004, Tax Compliance Officer Mark
Harris (TCO Harris) notified petitioners that their 2002 return
had been selected for examination. At the same time, TCO Harris
sent to petitioners Form 4564, Information Document Request, to
request documentation establishing certain expense deductions
that petitioners claimed on their Schedule A, Itemized
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011