Tae M. & Young J. Kim - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          Swanson v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 86 (1996).  “A position has           
          a reasonable basis in fact if there is relevant evidence that a             
          reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.           
          See Pierce v. Underwood, supra at 564-565.”  Corkrey v. Commis-             
          sioner, 115 T.C. 366, 373 (2000).  In determining whether the               
          position of the Commissioner was substantially justified, we must           
          “consider the basis for respondent’s legal position and the                 
          manner in which the position was maintained.”  Wasie v. Commis-             
          sioner, 86 T.C. 962, 969 (1986).  The fact that the Commissioner            
          concedes an issue is not conclusive as to whether the Commis-               
          sioner’s position with respect to that issue was substantially              
          justified.  See Corkrey v. Commissioner, supra; Sokol v. Commis-            
          sioner, 92 T.C. 760, 767 (1989); Wasie v. Commissioner, supra at            
          968-969.                                                                    
               In respondent’s response to petitioners’ motion, respondent            
          indicates that petitioners have substantially prevailed with                
          respect to the amount in controversy within the meaning of                  
          section 7430(c)(4)(A)(i)(I).  However, respondent argues that               
          respondent’s position was substantially justified with respect to           
          the $21,267 gross proceeds determination, the $622 interest                 
          determination, the $16 Travelers Prop. determination, the section           
          6662(a) determination, petitioners’ alleged capital gain issue,             
          and petitioners’ alleged capital loss issue.  Therefore, accord-            
          ing to respondent, petitioners are not the prevailing party                 







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007