*633 Petitioner's motion will be denied and order and decision will be entered in accordance with respondent's Rule 155 computation.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RAUM, JUDGE: The instant matter is before us on petitioner's motion for reasonable administrative and litigation costs pursuant to *634
On May 13, 1997, we issued our opinion on the substantive issues in the instant case. Pursuant to their divorce, petitioner and his ex-wife sold their marital home. They entered into an agreement under which the ex-wife was responsible for paying the taxes due from the sale of the marital home. No joint return was filed by petitioner and his ex-wife for the year in which the house was sold. We found that, despite their agreement, since the divorce court did not change the result of the operation of Michigan law, petitioner owned a one- half interest in the house and was responsible for half the taxes due. In the notice of deficiency, *636 the Commissioner determined that petitioner owed taxes on 50 percent of the gain from the sale. However, in ill-advised reliance on
Generally,
Respondent contends that petitioner has not demonstrated that the position*638 of the United States was not substantially justified or that the amounts claimed are reasonable. Respondent concedes that petitioner has satisfied the other requirements for the award of reasonable litigation costs. We shall first address whether respondent's position was substantially justified.
Respondent's position is substantially justified if it has a reasonable basis in fact and law.
Petitioner makes no substantive argument about the authority, or lack thereof, for respondent's legal position. He seems to assume that since a decision was entered under Rule 155, he is entitled to half the litigation*639 and administrative costs. "The JUDGE in the Trial Hearing (pg. 3 of Petitioner's Brief) SUGGESTED filing for Litigation and Administrative costs, if you win. Both the IRS and Petitioner won 50%, therefore Petitioner files for 1/2 of his costs & time."
Even if petitioner had put forth a substantive argument, he would not be entitled to administrative and litigation costs in this case. In the notice of deficiency, the Government took the position that petitioner was liable for 50 percent of the taxes due upon the sale of his marital home. That position was taken because petitioner and his wife jointly owned the home, and the divorce court had not changed the ownership of the property in the property settlement accompanying the divorce decree. Under Michigan law, unless the divorce decree provides otherwise, upon their divorce, married property owners become tenants in common. Mich. Stat. Ann. sec. 25.132 (Law. Co-op. 1992).
Shortly before the case was submitted to the Court, the Government conceded half of the deficiency relying, in error, on
This case is unusual in that when the Government was seeking the larger deficiency amount, its position was legally correct. Its concession resulted in a windfall for petitioner; he avoided liability for taxes he otherwise legally would have owed. Given the benefit to petitioner and given that the Court would have held for the Government had it maintained its original position, we hold that there was substantial justification for the Government's position. Since we find for the Government on that issue, *641 we need not consider whether the amounts claimed by petitioner as administration and litigation costs were reasonable.
To reflect the foregoing,
Petitioner's motion will be denied and order and decision will be entered in accordance with respondent's Rule 155 computation.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2.
Sec. 7430 was amended by the TaxpayerBill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 701, 110 Stat. 1452, 1463-1464 (1996), effective with respect to proceedings commenced after July 30, 1996. The amendments to the section place on the Commissioner the burden of establishing that the position of the Commissioner was substantially justified.Sec. 7430(c)(4)(B) . A judicial proceeding is commenced in this Court with the filing of a petition. Rule 20(a). Petitioner filed his petition on April 6, 1995. Accordingly, the amendments tosec. 7430 enacted by the TaxpayerBill of Rights 2 do not apply here.Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430">108 T.C. 430↩ (1997).