Court Opinion

ID: 9477225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:17:31.508763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:46.118044
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
The majority opinion ably sets forth the reasons why prelitigation conduct should be considered in determining whether the “position of the United States in the civil proceeding” is unreasonable. I agree *610wholeheartedly with that portion of the opinion.
I believe, however, that the case should be remanded to the Tax Court to determine under the proper standard whether the United States’ conduct was unreasonable in this case. In the event of a further appeal on this issue our review would be illuminated by the Tax Court’s decision.
If I were to decide the issue, however, I would hold that the conduct was unreasonable. In the earlier quiet-title case in which the government’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, the “innocent spouse” issue was raised. Also, conferences were held prior to the government’s forcing Mrs. Sliwa to commence this action to secure release from the deficiency notice. Despite being furnished with an affidavit from Mr. Sliwa indicating that his spouse was totally unaware of his embezzlement and Mrs. Sli-wa’s statement to that effect, the government never requested bank records or any other information available to Mrs. Sliwa, which was not furnished. If bank records were important to the government’s decision it should have requested them rather than forcing the taxpayer to expensive litigation.
After the proceeding was instituted, all of the evidence indicated that Mrs. Sliwa was an innocent spouse. The purpose of securing the bank records was to rebut that evidence. The burden should have been on the government to undergo the expense of producing the records, rather than requiring Mrs. Sliwa to subpoena them. Moreover, once Mrs. Sliwa obtained the records, the government unjustifiably delayed examination of them, forcing Mrs. Sliwa to commence discovery in view of the imminent trial setting.
Congress has wisely provided for attorney’s fees which partially compensate taxpayers for expenses and inconvenience caused by unreasonable conduct. Here, the government unnecessarily precipitated the litigation and unreasonably added to the expenses once suit was filed.