- 13 -
respondent believed that a section 481 adjustment was necessary
and that petitioner’s circumstances were not unusual or
compelling because petitioner’s reliance on his accountant did
not actually cause petitioner to miss the deadline for filing the
section 475(f) mark-to-market election. The record indicates
that respondent came to those conclusions after much deliberation
and consultation within the IRS and not in a thoughtless or
reckless manner as petitioner argues. Based on the lack of
guidance available at the time, we cannot say that it should have
been “obvious” to respondent from the onset of the litigation
that respondent’s position was in error. See Nalle v.
Commissioner, supra at 192 (citing Sher v. Commissioner, 861 F.2d
131, 135 (5th Cir. 1988), affg. 89 T.C. 79, 84 (1987)).
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion will be denied.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011