Tae M. & Young J. Kim - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          respondent’s position for purposes of section 7430(c)(7)(A) is              
          that set forth in the answer.  See id.  With respect to petition-           
          ers’ alleged capital gain issue and petitioners’ alleged capital            
          loss issue, respondent’s position for purposes of section                   
          7430(c)(7)(A) is that set forth in respondent’s pretrial memoran-           
          dum.8                                                                       
               We first address respondent’s position for purposes of                 
          section 7430(c)(7)(A) with respect to the $622 interest determi-            
          nation, the $16 Travelers Prop. determination, petitioners’                 
          alleged capital gain issue, and petitioners’ alleged capital loss           
          issue.  In the Court’s Opinion, the Court held in favor of                  
          respondent, and against petitioners, with respect to each of                
          those matters.  On the record before us, we find (1) that respon-           
          dent has met respondent’s burden under section 7430(c)(4)(B)(i)             


               8Petitioners did not raise petitioners’ alleged capital gain           
          issue and petitioners’ alleged capital loss issue until Dec. 12,            
          2005, when respondent received petitioners’ 2002 amended return.            
          As a result, respondent was not able to take a position with                
          respect to either of those issues in the answer that respondent             
          filed on Sept. 16, 2004.  In respondent’s pretrial memorandum,              
          respondent indicated that if the Court were to rule that peti-              
          tioners’ 2002 amended return is admissible into evidence, a trial           
          would be necessary with respect to the issues raised therein.               
          However, respondent did not elaborate further in respondent’s               
          pretrial memorandum.  At trial, respondent made clear that                  
          respondent disagreed with petitioners’ claims regarding petition-           
          ers’ alleged capital gain issue and petitioners’ alleged capital            
          loss issue.  However, respondent did not elaborate further.  It             
          was only on brief that respondent gave reasons in support of                
          respondent’s position in respondent’s pretrial memorandum that              
          petitioners are not entitled to the respective increases in                 
          short-term capital gains and long-term capital losses claimed in            
          petitioners’ 2002 amended return.                                           





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007