- 46 -
participation in an Appeals office conference. See 26
C.F.R. Section 301.7430-1(b)(1)(i). It is undisputed
that, upon receiving the results of the IRS audit,
Petitioner’s Counsel had a conference with the Appeals
division, Cynthia Ace.
Petitioner also contends (a) “a request for legal fees is valid
at the administrative level”, (b) respondent refused to settle
the case unless petitioner waived litigation costs, (c)
“Respondent was arguably also in violation of RRA 98[22] as it
relates to a lack of fairness to Petitioner”, and (d) “The Tax
Court should correctly determine that Petitioner did in fact
exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. Haas &
Associates Accountancy Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 Fed. Appx. 476.”
We agree with petitioner’s conclusion even though we
disagree with petitioner’s analysis.
Section 7430(b)(1) (supra note 15) prohibits the awarding of
litigation costs under subsection (a) in the instant case unless
the Court determines that petitioner exhausted the administrative
remedies available to him within the Internal Revenue Service.
22 We assume petitioner refers to the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206,
112 Stat. 685. Sec. 3101 of that Act (112 Stat. at 727) makes
numerous amendments to different parts of sec. 7430(c), but we
have not found any amendments made by that Act to sec.
7430(b)(1), relating to the requirement of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, and petitioner has not directed our
attention to any such amendments. Nor has petitioner directed
our attention to any specific provision of that Act (which
extends for 183 pages in the Statutes at Large) that bears on our
consideration of the requirement of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, even though his reference to “RRA 98” appears in the
portion of his answering legal memorandum headed “PETITIONER
EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES”.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011