- 15 -
within the meaning of section 7430(c)(4) with respect to any of
those issues. Respondent does not maintain that respondent’s
position with respect to the $8 interest determination was
substantially justified.
Respondent concedes in respondent’s response to petitioners’
motion that petitioners have exhausted the available administra-
tive remedies, see sec. 7430(b)(1), and does not dispute that
petitioners meet the net worth requirements, see sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii). However, respondent argues that petitioners
unreasonably protracted the proceeding, see sec. 7430(b)(3), and
that petitioners have not provided any information that estab-
lishes that they incurred the claimed litigation costs, the issue
or issues to which such claimed costs relate, the amount of such
claimed costs incurred with respect to each such issue, and that
such claimed costs are reasonable, see sec. 7430(a)(2).
Because respondent has taken an issue-by-issue approach in
advancing respondent’s arguments in support of respondent’s
position that the Court should deny petitioners’ motion, we shall
do the same. See Swanson v. Commissioner, supra at 102.
As pertinent here, the position of respondent for purposes
of section 7430(c)(7)(A) with respect to an issue in this case is
the position first taken by respondent with respect to that
issue. See Maggie Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 442
(1997). With respect to the determinations in the 2002 notice,
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007