L.S. Vines - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               The Commissioner’s position is substantially justified if,             
          on the basis of all the facts and circumstances and legal                   
          precedent, the Commissioner acted reasonably.  Pierce v.                    
          Underwood, supra; Sher v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 79, 84 (1987),              
          affd. 861 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1988).  In other words, the                    
          Commissioner’s position must have a reasonable basis in both law            
          and fact.  Pierce v. Underwood, supra.  A position is                       
          substantially justified if the position is “justified to a degree           
          that could satisfy a reasonable person”.  Id. at 565.  The                  
          Commissioner’s position may be incorrect but still be                       
          substantially justified if “‘a reasonable person could think it             
          correct’”.  Maggie Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 443             


               3(...continued)                                                        
          million net worth limitation of 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d)(2)(B), we            
          note that, while petitioner incurred an approximate $26 million             
          loss in April 2000, he also received approximately $35 million in           
          taxable years 1999 and 2000 resulting in a net gain of almost $9            
          million for those taxable years.  In his affidavit, petitioner              
          listed assets totaling $3,074,552, but claims that his net worth            
          when he filed the petition on July 21, 2004, was a negative                 
          $575,844 after subtracting a $3,692,356 tax liability, which                
          petitioner computed based on our Opinion in Vines I on May 11,              
          2006.  We also note that respondent contends that petitioner used           
          the wrong method to value certain assets listed in petitioner’s             
          affidavit.  If we were to consider these issues, we would require           
          further evidence, and possibly a hearing, in order to decide                
          whether petitioner meets the $2 million net worth limitation of             
          28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d)(2)(B).                                               
               We also note that petitioner has not shown that he qualifies           
          for the higher $7 million net worth limitation under 28 U.S.C.              
          sec. 2412(d)(2)(B) because petitioner presented no evidence that,           
          on the date he filed his petition, he was the owner of an                   
          unincorporated business.                                                    




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011