- 27 -
documents were supplied to the Fresno
service center.
6. Petitioner requested depositions to be
authorized by this Court to examine the
word document, and or the absence of it
and the use and recollection of statements
made by IRS reps to Petitioner’s Counsel.
This request was denied. Petitioner
instead was forced on relying on
Respondent obtaining statements regarding
this mis-spelled word in Petitioner’s
transcript.
7. Not surprisingly Respondent’s examination
of supposed witnesses produced no smoking
gun or even a recollection of comments
regarding Petitioner’s case, which took
place prior to Petitioner discovering the
P22 showing error rates that are so
staggering, that if those same error rates
were done in private industry, and an
individual was forced to suffer because of
the error rate, civil and criminal charges
would have flown from the egregious 54%
error rate, and 75% of viewed cases having
documentation supporting EIC
qualification. [Reproduced literally.]
In his answering legal memorandum petitioner states as
follows:
PETITIONER HAS ALLEGED THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION WAS
NOT SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED.
All agree that �2412(d)(1)(B) requires a fee applicant
to allege that the Government’s position “was not
substantially justified. Scarborough v. Principi, 541
U.S. 401. It is not Petitioner’s responsibility to
prove it was in fact substantially justified, only to
allege that Respondent was not substantially justified.
In this case, the claim Respondent was not
substantially justified has already been made, which is
described in the below paragraphs.
Petitioner’s Motion for Legal Costs, dated 1-21-06,
stated in 1. of the brief, that the dynamics of the
Committee report versus the statute. In this
recitation, Petitioner covered the magic words of
substantially unjustified.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011