- 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