- 10 -
suggests that it would have been difficult for Mr. Lippitz to
litigate a joint personal tax liability for nearly 20 years and
not, at some point, have alerted petitioner to the fact that such
a litigation was ongoing. Moreover, after learning of the
outstanding litigation, petitioner took at least a year to seek
leave to amend her petitions. Finally, respondent believed he
had resolved all of the issues in the matter by an agreement
reached in April of 2003.6 Thus, we find respondent’s position
opposing petitioner’s motion to amend to have been reasonable.
While respondent’s position was reasonable at the start, it
does not necessarily follow that respondent’s position continued
to be reasonable, especially when additional facts came to light.
On November 10, 2005, CCISO issued a determination letter
recommending that petitioner be granted innocent spouse relief.
Despite CCISO’s determination, respondent persisted in his denial
of petitioner’s claim and filed his answer to this effect.
Respondent does not point to any substance, such as an error in
CCISO’s determination or other legal or factual basis, upon which
he maintained his denial of relief. Pierce v. Underwood, supra
at 565. Instead, respondent simply maintains that he needed to
develop more fully the facts related to petitioner’s claim.
6We note that while petitioner denied being bound by the
April 2003 agreement, she did not deny her knowledge of the
litigation or the agreement at the time it was reached. Instead
petitioner has averred, vaguely, that she did not learn of the
litigation until “sometime in 2003”.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007