- 48 -
costs. On this state of the record, we do not conclude that
petitioner’s contentions (a) and (b) justify ruling for
petitioner on the exhaustion of administrative remedies issue.
As we have noted (supra note 22) petitioner’s contention
(c), relating to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998, does not add anything to the force of his
argument.
Finally, we are mystified by petitioner’s citation of the
Haas & Associates opinion, in which the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed our holding that the taxpayer therein was
not entitled to an award of litigation costs.
Notwithstanding our rejection of all of petitioner’s
contentions, we conclude that petitioner does qualify under
section 301.7430-1(f)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., which provides
as follows:
(f) Exception to requirement that party pursue
administrative remedies. If the conditions set forth
in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of this
section are satisfied, a party’s administrative
remedies within the Internal Revenue Service shall be
deemed to have been exhausted for purposes of section
7430.
* * * * * * *
(2) In the case of a petition in the Tax Court--
(i) The party did not receive a notice of proposed
deficiency (30-day letter) prior to the issuance of the
statutory notice and the failure to receive such notice
was not due to actions of the party (such as a failure
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