- 19 -
record before us, we find (1) that respondent has met respon-
dent’s burden under section 7430(c)(4)(B)(i) of establishing that
respondent’s position was substantially justified and (2) that
petitioners are not the prevailing party under section 7430(c)(4)
with respect to the $21,267 gross proceeds determination.11
We next address respondent’s position for purposes of
section 7430(c)(7)(A) with respect to the section 6662(a) deter-
mination to the extent that determination imposed an accuracy-
related penalty on the portion of the 2002 underpayment that was
attributable to the $21,267 gross proceeds determination.
Respondent conceded the section 6662(a) determination at the time
respondent conceded the $21,267 gross proceeds determination.
For the reasons set forth above, on the record before us, we find
(1) that respondent has met respondent’s burden under section
7430(c)(4)(B)(i) of establishing that respondent’s position was
substantially justified and (2) that petitioners are not the
prevailing party under section 7430(c)(4) with respect to the
section 6662(a) determination to the extent that determination
imposed an accuracy-related penalty on the portion of the 2002
underpayment that was attributable to the $21,267 gross proceeds
determination.12
We now address whether petitioners are entitled to litiga-
11See supra note 9.
12See supra note 9.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007