Estate of Daphne Baynham White, Deceased, Kemble White, Independent Executor - Page 7

                                        - 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