DocketNumber: Docket No. 22968-93
Judges: FAY
Filed Date: 8/1/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FAY,
A decision document was entered on October 28, 1994. Petitioner filed a motion for an award of reasonable administrative costs in the total amount of $ 28,285.54 on November 29, 1994. 3 This Court vacated the decision document pending our action on this motion.
*359
1. File a timely motion for an award of reasonable litigation and administrative costs. Rule 231(a).
2. Substantially prevail in the proceeding in this Court with respect to the amount in controversy or most significant issues.
3. Establish that he or she did not unreasonably protract the administrative proceeding or the proceeding in this Court.
4. Establish that respondent's positions in the administrative proceeding and the proceeding in this Court were not substantially justified in law or in fact.
5. In the case of a motion for litigation costs, exhaust any administrative remedies available in the Internal Revenue Service.
6. Have a net worth that did not exceed $ 2 million at the time the petition was filed in the case.
7. Establish that the requested costs and attorney's fees are reasonable in amount.
The seven requirements are conjunctive; each of the applicable requirements must be met before the Court may order an award of litigation or administrative costs under
Petitioner's motion for award of costs was timely filed. Respondent has conceded (1) that*361 petitioner has substantially prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy; and (2) that petitioner has exhausted the administrative remedies available within the Service.
At issue is (1) whether respondent's positions in the administrative and Court proceedings were substantially justified; (2) whether petitioner did not unreasonably protract the Court proceedings; (3) whether petitioner has complied with the net worth requirement; and (4) whether the requested costs and attorney's fees are reasonable.
Petitioner must prove that respondent's positions in the administrative proceeding and the proceeding in this Court were not substantially justified.
In determining if respondent's position was substantially justified, the question essentially is one of whether respondent's position in the administrative and judicial proceedings was reasonable.4
Petitioner is a*364 nonresident alien who lives in Mexico City, Mexico. He owns several pieces of residential and commercial real estate in El Paso, Texas. Petitioner received rental income from these properties during the taxable years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. Petitioner sold real estate located in El Paso, Texas, in 1989 on an installment basis, receiving capital gain income in the taxable years 1989, 1990, and 1991. Petitioner also received imputed interest income in 1990 from loans to Alfer Corporation.
A nonresident alien individual who is engaged in trade or business in the United States at any time during the taxable year is required to file a return on Form 1040NR.
Petitioner, who was engaged in a United States trade or business on a calendar-year basis, failed to file income tax returns for the taxable years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 on a timely basis as required by
Respondent's positions on the date of the notice of deficiency and on the date she filed her answer were substantially similar. 5 Respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of deductions and credits pursuant to
*366
The regulations under
With regard to the 1990, 1991, and 1992 tax returns, it is respondent's position that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of deductions in those years because he did not file timely returns as required by the new
Under the new
Petitioner did not file any returns before October 15, 1992; thus, his 1990 return was not timely filed, and respondent's disallowance of deductions and credits for 1990 was certainly reasonable. With regard to petitioner's 1991 and 1992 returns, respondent maintained that the first set of returns filed (i.e., those*368 filed by petitioner's agent on July 13, 1993) was not a valid set of returns, 6 and, since the returns filed on November 8, 1993, were not timely under the new
*369
Petitioner contends, the * * * Where a return complete in form, signed in the taxpayer's name by one purporting to have authority and who actually had such authority, was filed, we find no basis for holding that this was no such return as would commence the running of the statute of limitations.
We find the present case to be factually distinguishable from
*371
With regard to petitioner's 1988 and 1989 returns, it is respondent's position that petitioner is not entitled to deductions under
Petitioner cites Without prescribing an absolute and rigid rule that whenever the Commissioner files a return for a foreign corporation*372 the taxpayer is completely and automatically denied the benefit of deductions or credits, we yet hold that the facts of the instant case justify a disallowance of deductions which petitioner might otherwise have been entitled to claim, had it filed a
The Fourth Circuit recognized the importance of filing a timely return for the benefit of deductions but did not impose a rigid rule concerning the time when the Commissioner may disallow deductions to a foreign person.
Petitioner's 1988 and 1989 returns were due on June 15, 1989, and June 15, 1990, respectively. It was not until 1993*373 that any sort of return was filed on behalf of petitioner. 9 In light of the fact that petitioner filed his 1988 return more than 4 years after it was due and his 1989 return more than 3 years after it was due, we do not find respondent's position with regard to disallowing the benefit of deductions in the taxable years 1988 and 1989 unreasonable.
Petitioner appears to complain of the harshness of
In light of petitioner's failure to file timely returns for the taxable years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, and the legal precedents, we cannot say that respondent's disallowance of petitioner's deductions in these years was unreasonable. Petitioner has not carried his burden of proving that the position of the United States was not substantially justified, and, as such, he is not entitled to reasonable litigation and administrative costs under
Accordingly, petitioner's motion shall be denied.
1. Petitioner, a nonresident alien doing business in the United States, lived in ColoniaNaucalpan, Mexico, at the time he filed his petition.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
3. In Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to an Award of Reasonable Litigation Costs, petitioner seeks an award for additional attorney's fees, incurred during the Court proceeding, in the amount of $ 6,050. Thus, we treat petitioner's motion as one for litigation as well as administrative costs.↩
4. For civil tax cases commenced after Dec. 31, 1985, sec. 1551(d)(1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, 2752, changed the language describing the position of the United States from "unreasonable" to "not substantially justified". This Court has held that the substantially justified standard does not represent a departure from the reasonableness standard.
5. Petitioner filed a motion to produce the Revenue Agent's Report, a sworn statement, and the appellate conferee's transmittal letter. Said motion will be denied on the grounds that said documents are not relevant or necessary to establish respondent's position on the pertinent dates. The Revenue Agent's report predates both relevant dates. Furthermore, the positions of the respondent on the pertinent dates are clear from the record.↩
6. Petitioner contends that respondent, in her trial memorandum, conceded that the 1991 and 1992 returns were valid returns. Petitioner concludes that this concession is dispositive proof that respondent's position with regard to those years was not substantially justified. Respondent, in her response, alleges that the two sets of returns filed in this case led her to write down the wrong dates and to mistakenly concede this issue in the trial memorandum. We do not find this error in the trial memorandum to be a concession on the part of respondent. We also note that this concession would not, in any case, establish that the position was not substantially justified. See
7. Petitioner also cites
8. This statute, which has been carried forward into sec. 882(c)(2) of the 1986 Code, applies to foreign corporations that are engaged in business in the United States. It is the counterpart of
9. Petitioner contends that his agent promised that returns were being prepared and would be filed shortly. In fact, no returns were received until July 1993, 2 months after this promise, and, even then, these returns did not satisfy the regulatory requirements of
clair-s-huffman-estate-of-patricia-c-huffman-deceased-clair-s-huffman ( 1992 )
Robert Randall Baker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 )
Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1942 )
Morris Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1956 )
David E. Gantner and Sandra L. Gantner v. Commissioner of ... ( 1990 )
Leopold Z. Sher and Karen B. Sher v. Commissioner of ... ( 1988 )