- 6 -
follow “normal administrative procedures” that “would have
resulted in an explanation that would have ended the case.”
The executor asserts that “Respondent’s performance
did not improve after a petition was filed.” According to
the executor, respondent lost the administrative file and
made “numerous requests for extension to file an answer.”
The executor also asserts that after all relevant tax
returns were sent to respondent’s counsel, the estate “was
advised that the items could not be reconciled, that the
case would need to be referred to Appeals, and that it
would take a year to get the case resolved.” The estate
argues that “this caused Petitioner to waste a lot of time
preparing a Motion for Summary Judgment.” We note that no
motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of the
estate.
The executor acknowledges that there are court
opinions holding that, for purposes of deciding claims for
litigation costs, the position of the United States is
determined in the Government’s answer. The executor argues
that “the Commissioner should [not] be given a free pass
because the position of the United States is that taken in
an Answer.” The executor also argues that those cases are
distinguishable from this case because, in those cases,
“the judicial proceedings were preceded by administrative
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011