- 7 -
proceedings in which the taxpayers failed to come forward
with the evidence needed to resolve the contested issues.”
The executor does not specify the cases to which he refers.
According to the executor, in this case, the estate “was
denied any administrative appeal and the opportunity to end
the case with a letter because Respondent failed to work
the case in a timely manner.” The executor also argues
that “the Government’s litigating position includes pre-
litigation proceedings” and cites Estate of Cervin v.
Commissioner, 111 F.3d 1252 (5th Cir. 1997), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1994-550.
Respondent’s Position: Respondent concedes that the
estate substantially prevailed with respect to the amount
in controversy, and with respect to the most significant
issue presented, as required by section 7430(c)(4)(A)(i) to
qualify as a prevailing party. Respondent also concedes
that the estate meets the net worth requirement of 28
U.S.C. section 2412(d)(2)(B), as required by section
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).
Respondent argues that the estate is not the
“prevailing party” and is not eligible for an award of
litigation costs under section 7430(a) because the position
of the United States in this proceeding was “substantially
justified” within the meaning of the exception to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011