SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION *
KROUPA, Judge: This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for litigation fees and costs pursuant to
2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27">*28 Background
The underlying facts of this case are set out in detail in
On a Federal tax return for 2001, petitioner claimed business expense deductions for a master's degree in business administration (MBA) and other expenses related to his work for Selane Products (the company). Respondent disallowed the expense deductions in a deficiency notice dated October 1, 2003, and determined that petitioner was liable for an accuracy-related penalty.
We ruled in petitioner's favor regarding petitioner's MBA- related expense deductions and the accuracy-related penalty but denied petitioner deductions for other claimed business expenses because petitioner failed to substantiate the expenses in Allemeier I. Petitioner2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27">*29 then submitted a motion for litigation costs, and respondent filed a response. 4 Respondent agrees that petitioner: (1) Has not unreasonably protractedthe court proceedings; (2) has substantially prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy and with respect to the most significant issue presented in the court proceedings; and (3) has met the net worth requirements as provided by law. Respondent disputes, however, that petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies, that petitioner was the prevailing party, and that petitioner's litigation fees are reasonable.
Neither party requested a hearing on this motion, and the Court concludes that a hearing is not necessary to decide this motion. See
Discussion
We must determine2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27">*30 whether petitioner is entitled to recover reasonable litigation costs. A taxpayer may recover reasonable litigation costs if the taxpayer establishes that he or she is the prevailing party, has exhausted administrative remedies, has not unreasonably protracted the court proceedings, and has claimed reasonable litigation costs. 5
Prevailing Party
To be a prevailing party, the taxpayer must substantially prevail with respect to either the amount in controversy or the most significant issue or set of issues presented, and must satisfy the net worth requirements. See
Respondent concedes that petitioner substantially prevailed and met the net worth requirements. See
Substantial Justification
The Commissioner's position is substantially justified if, based on all the facts and circumstances and relevant legal precedents, the Commissioner acted reasonably. See
That respondent loses on an issue is not determinative of the reasonableness of respondent's position. See
The Court looks to whether the Commissioner's position was reasonable given the available facts and circumstances at the time the Commissioner took his position. See
Whether Respondent's Position Was Substantially Justified
In Allemeier I, respondent's position was that petitioner was not entitled to an MBA-related expense deduction on two bases. Respondent argued, first, that petitioner's enrollment in the MBA program constituted a "minimum educational requirement" to continue his employment at the company. See
Although we found that petitioner was encouraged rather than required to obtain the MBA, we find that respondent was substantially justified in arguing that the MBA program constituted a minimum educational requirement. See
Accordingly, we find that respondent's position was substantially justified. 6 Petitioner is therefore not the prevailing party and may not recover any litigation costs. 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 27">*35 See
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
*. This opinion supplements our prior Memorandum Opinion,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
2. Petitioner alternatively claims a lower litigation expense amount of $ 15,233.28, which he computed based upon the ratio of deductions granted versus deductions denied (92.2 percent of $ 16,522 equals $ 15,233.28).↩
3. Petitioner has resided in Las Vegas, Nev., since August 2004.↩
4. Petitioner filed a reply to respondent's response that the Court did not direct petitioner to file. See
5. Respondent concedes that petitioner did not unreasonably protract proceedings. See
6. For similar reasons, we also conclude that respondent's position regarding the accuracy-related penalty was substantially justified. See
7. We note that petitioner submitted a $ 15,553 billing statement for litigation costs from his father, a non-tax attorney who entered no appearance in this proceeding and is ineligible to practice before the Court, but petitioner made no showing that he actually paid or was legally obligated to pay the fees to his father. See