- 41 -
On April 5, 2004, petitioner finally provided documentation
by the unorthodox (in this Court) device of a motion in limine.
Although the road thereafter was bumpy, on September 8, 2004, Wu
sent to Moffatt a proposed stipulation of settled issues,
agreeing that petitioner is entitled to the claimed earned income
credit and that petitioner had made an overpayment of $2,890; in
essence, respondent conceded the case.
Respondent’s position--that petitioner was not entitled to
the claimed earned income credit unless petitioner could show he
was so entitled--was substantially justified. When petitioner
finally did provide the requested documentation--more than 10
months after respondent first asked for it and more than 4 months
after respondent filed the answer in the instant case--respondent
conceded the case 5 months later. It is evident that this delay
is attributable in significant part to the aggressive postures
presented by those who spoke for both parties. Nevertheless, the
delay was not unreasonably long. See, e.g., cases collected at
Sokol v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 760, 765 (1989).
We conclude, and we have found, that respondent has
successfully carried the burden of establishing that the position
of the United States in the instant judicial proceeding was
substantially justified.
On answering legal memorandum, petitioner argues as follows:
The burden of establishing that the position of the
United States was substantially justified,
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011