Kenneth A. Mandel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH A. MANDEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-72652
Tax Ct. No. 361-09
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth A. Mandel appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision denying
his request for litigation and administrative costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. We
have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review for an abuse of discretion.
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72652 2
Huffman v. Comm’r, 978 F.2d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mandel was
not the prevailing party because the Commissioner’s position on the
accuracy-related penalty for tax year 2005, for negligence under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6662(a), was substantially justified, given Mandel’s failure to turn over his
contemporaneous basis workpapers until seven months after he filed his petition
for review. See 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(B)(i) (a party is not a “prevailing party” if
the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified); 26 C.F.R.
§ 301.7430-5(c)(1) (“A significant factor in determining whether the position of
the Internal Revenue Service is substantially justified as of a given date is whether,
on or before that date, the taxpayer has presented all relevant information under the
taxpayer’s control . . . to the appropriate Internal Revenue Service personnel.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --