¶1MEMORANDUM OPINION
¶2VASQUEZ, JUDGE: This case is before the Court on petitioners' motion for award of litigation and administrative costs and attorney's fees pursuant to section 7430 and Rule 231. 1 We see no reason for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. See Rule 232(a)(2). Accordingly, we rule on petitioners' motion on the basis of the parties' submissions and the existing record. See Rule 232(a)(1). The portions of our opinion on the merits in the instant case, Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-448 (Johnson I), that are relevant to our disposition of this motion are incorporated herein*149 by this reference.
¶3After concessions, 2 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are the "prevailing party" in the underlying tax case; (2) whether petitioners unreasonably protracted the Court's proceeding; and (3) whether the amounts of administrative and litigation costs claimed by petitioners are reasonable.
¶4BACKGROUND
¶5Petitioners are husband and wife. Mr. Johnson operated Ford and Lincoln-Mercury motor vehicle dealerships. The substantive issues in Johnson I were: (1) Whether petitioners were entitled to defer recognition of gain on the disposition of certain property*150 pursuant to section 1033; (2) whether petitioners were liable for the fraud penalty pursuant to section 6663(a), or, in the alternative, the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for 1992; and (3) whether petitioners were liable for the addition to tax for failure to file timely their return for 1992. We held that (1) petitioners were entitled to defer recognition of gain on the disposition of that property pursuant to section 1033; (2) petitioners were not liable for the fraud or accuracy-related penalties; and (3) we lacked jurisdiction over the addition to tax for failure to file timely.
¶6DISCUSSION
¶7Section 7430 provides for the award of administrative and litigation costs to a taxpayer in an administrative or court proceeding brought against the United States involving the determination of any tax, interest, or penalty pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. An award of administrative or litigation costs may be made where the taxpayer (1) is the "prevailing party", (2) exhausted available administrative remedies, 3 (3) did not unreasonably protract the administrative or judicial proceeding, and (4) claimed reasonable administrative and litigation costs. See sec. *151 7430(a), (b)(1), (3), (c). These requirements are conjunctive, and failure to satisfy any one will preclude an award of costs to petitioners. See Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492, 497 (1987).
¶8PREVAILING PARTY
¶9To be a "prevailing party" (1) the taxpayer must substantially prevail with respect to either the amount in controversy or the most significant issue or set of issues presented, and (2) at the time the petition in the case was filed, the taxpayer must meet the net worth requirements of 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d)(2)(B) (1994). See sec. 7430(c)(4)(A). A taxpayer, however, will not be treated as the prevailing party if the Commissioner establishes that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified. See sec. 7430(c)(4)(B).
¶10Respondent contends, inter alia, that petitioners have not satisfied the net worth requirements.
¶11NET WORTH REQUIREMENTS
¶12Rule 231(b)(4) provides that *152 a motion for litigation or administrative costs shall contain "A statement that the moving party meets the net worth requirements, if applicable, of Section 2412(d)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code (as in effect on October 22, 1986), which statement shall be supported by an affidavit executed by the moving party and not by counsel for the moving party". The net worth limitation of $ 2 million applicable to individuals applies separately to each taxpayer. See Hong v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 88 (1993); Prager v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-420. 4 The taxpayers bear the burden of establishing that they meet the net worth requirements. See Rule 232(e); Dixson Intl. Serv. Corp. v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 708, 718 (1990).
¶13*153 Petitioners' motion for costs contained a statement that petitioners satisfied the net worth requirements. Petitioners submitted an affidavit that stated their net worth was less than $ 4 million jointly and $ 2 million individually. Petitioners also submitted a schedule of their assets and liabilities as of the date the petition was filed (first joint net worth schedule). The first joint net worth schedule listed the following assets and liabilities:
¶14Assets Value
¶15______ _____
¶16Savings accounts and or certificates $ 62,834
¶17Checking accounts 24,000
¶18Annuity 118,615
¶19Investment in dealership 734,487
¶20Real estate 7,354,000
¶21Home furnishings 125,000
¶22 Total assets 8,418,936
¶23Liabilities Value
¶24___________ _____
¶25Unsecured bank loans $ 71,028
¶26Mortgages, trust deeds or
¶27 contracts payable 4,541,660
¶28 Total liabilities *154 4,612,688
¶29 The first joint net worth schedule listed the combined net worth of petitioners to be $ 3,806,248. The first joint net worth schedule did not list either Mr. Johnson's or Mrs. Johnson's individual net worth.
¶30Respondent filed an objection to petitioners' motion in which respondent argues that petitioners' affidavit and first joint net worth schedule are insufficient, and that petitioners have failed to prove that they meet the net worth requirements. Respondent contends that (1) petitioners did not itemize their assets or provide their cost bases; 5 (2) it is unclear whether the listed liabilities are personal liabilities of petitioners or corporate liabilities (i. e., liabilities of Mr. Johnson's car dealership); (3) if the liabilities are personal liabilities, it is unclear whether they are joint liabilities or separate liabilities of either Mr. Johnson or Mrs. Johnson; (4) petitioners failed to identify which assets are community property and which are separate property; and (5) the $ 2 million net worth limitation applies separately to each taxpayer, and the first joint net worth schedule lists the aggregate net worth of petitioners as less than $ 4 million *155 but does not establish the net worth of each petitioner.
¶31Petitioners filed a reply to respondent's objection and again submitted an affidavit that stated their net worth was less than $ 4 million jointly and $ 2 million individually. Petitioners also submitted three net worth schedules: One listing the net worth of both petitioners as of the date the petition was filed (second joint net worth schedule), one listing the net worth of Mr. Johnson as of the date the petition was filed (Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule), and one listing the net worth of Mrs. Johnson as of the date the petition was filed (Mrs. Johnson's net worth schedule).
¶32The second joint net worth schedule listed the following assets:
¶33Assets Value
¶35Savings accounts andor certificates $ 103,337
¶36Checking accounts 10,021
¶37Investment in dealership 1,328,800
¶38Real estate 2,277,476
¶39Home furnishings 125,000
¶40 Total assets 3,844,634
¶41______________________________________________________________________
¶42 [12] The real estate assets were broken down as follows:
¶43______________________________________________________________________
¶44 Accu-
¶45 Acqui- mulated
¶46Real sition Depre- Net Book
¶47Estate Cost ciation Value Value
¶48______________________________________________________________________
¶49Personal residence $ 405,000 -- -- $ 405,000
¶50Fox Field Bldg. 423,321 $ 116,775 $ 306,546 --
¶51Fox Field equip. 72,000 45,530 26,470 --
¶52El Monte Bldg. 793,279 187,201 606,078 --
¶53El Monte Bldg. points 8,000 1,467*157 6,533 --
¶54 Subtotal -- -- -- 945,627
¶55CRV 721,000 721,000 -- -0-
¶56WASU rental, 40,000 -0- 40,000 --
¶57 land
¶58WASU rental, 185,000 23,825 161,175 --
¶59 rental
¶60 Subtotal -- -- -- 201,175
¶61Ford dealership:
¶62 land 111,334 -0- 111,334 --
¶63 bldg. 684,009 69,669 614,340 --
¶64 computer 52,496 52,496 -0- --
¶65Subtotal -- -- -- 725,674
¶66Real estate total -- -- -- 2,277,476
¶67 [13] The second joint net worth schedule listed the following
¶68liabilities:
¶69Liabilities Value
¶70___________ _____
¶71Unsecured bank loans $ 71,028
¶72Secured loans 471,000
¶73Taxes payable 619,220
¶74Real estate loans:
¶75 First Union Mortgage *158 401,782
¶76 CA-Jon Hangar project loan 591,140
¶77 CRV 1,712,094
¶78 Havasu rental 160,387
¶79 Antelope Valley Ford & Shuttle
¶80 Lincoln-Mercury facilities loan 3,709,959
¶81 Total liabilities 7,736,610
¶82 The second joint net worth schedule determined the combined net worth of petitioners to be ($ 3,891,976).
¶83Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule and Mrs. Johnson's net worth schedule are identical. Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule and Mrs. Johnson's net worth schedule each listed the following assets:
¶84Assets Value
¶85______ _____
¶86Savings accounts andor certificates $ 51,669
¶87Checking accounts 5,011
¶88Investment in dealership 664,400
¶89Real estate 1,138,738
¶90Home furnishings 62,500
¶91 Total assets 1,922,317
¶92 [16] The real estate assets were broken down as follows:
¶94 Acqui- mulated
¶95Real sition Depre- Net Book
¶96Estate Cost ciation Value Value
¶97______ _______ _______ ________ _____
¶98Personal residence $ 405,000 -- -- $ 202,500
¶99Fox Field Bldg. 423,321 $ 116,775 $ 306,546 --
¶100Fox Field equip. 72,000 45,530 26,470 --
¶101El Monte Bldg. 793,279 187,201 606,078 --
¶102El Monte Bldg. 8,000 1,467 6,533 --
¶103 points
¶104 Subtotal -- -- -- 472,814
¶105CRV 721,000 721,000 -- -0-
¶106WASU rental, 40,000 -0- 40,000 --
¶107 land
¶108WASU rental, 185,000 23,825 161,175 --
¶109 rental
¶110Subtotal -- -- -- 100,588
¶111Ford dealership:
¶112 land 111,334 -0 - 111,334 --
¶113 bldg. 684,009 69,669 614,340 --
¶114 computer 52,496 52,496 *160 -0- --
¶115 Subtotal -- -- -- 362,837
¶116 Real estate total -- -- -- 1,138,738
¶117 [17] Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule and Mrs. Johnson's net
¶118worth schedule each listed the following liabilities:
¶119Liabilities Value
¶120___________ _____
¶121Unsecured bank loans $ 35,514
¶122Secured loans 235,500
¶123Taxes payable 309,610
¶124Real estate loans:
¶125First Union Mortgage 200,891
¶126CA-Jon Hangar project loan 295,570
¶127CRV 856,047
¶128Havasu rental 80,194
¶129Antelope Valley Ford & Shuttle
¶130Lincoln-Mercury facilities loan 1,854,980
¶131 Total liabilities 3,868,305
¶132 Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule and Mrs. Johnson's net worth schedule determined the individual net worth of each petitioner to be ($ 1,945,988).
¶133Essentially, petitioners split the amounts contained on the second joint net worth schedule in*161 half, attributing one-half to Mr. Johnson and the other half to Mrs. Johnson.
¶134Petitioners argue that to satisfy the net worth requirements they only need to submit a statement, supported by an affidavit executed by the moving party, that they meet the net worth requirements. We disagree.
¶135Petitioners were put on notice that respondent was specifically objecting to an award of administrative and litigation costs because petitioners failed to prove they meet the net worth requirements. After a taxpayer is put on notice that the Commissioner is specifically objecting to an award of administrative and/ or litigation costs because of the taxpayer's failure to prove his net worth, the taxpayer must provide supporting information (i. e., evidence) to establish his net worth. See Estate of Hubberd v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 335, 341 (1992); Dixson Intl. Serv. Corp. v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 719; see also McCoy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-423.
¶136Petitioners submitted no evidence supporting the amounts listed in the various net worth schedules or the statements in their original motion and supporting affidavits*162 that they meet the net worth requirements. Furthermore, respondent submitted evidence that the land upon which Mr. Johnson's motor vehicle dealerships are located is Mr. Johnson's sole and separate property. Petitioners, in their reply, failed to address whether this or any other property listed on the various net worth schedules was separate or community property. Additionally, petitioners included half the value of each property in both Mr. Johnson's net worth schedule and Mrs. Johnson's net worth schedule.
¶137The various net worth schedules submitted by petitioners leave doubt as to their veracity. The first joint net worth schedule and the second joint net worth schedule are almost $ 8 million apart as to petitioners' joint net worth as of the date the petition was filed. The amounts listed on the second joint net worth schedule changed by tens of thousands of dollars for petitioners' checking and savings accounts, changed by hundreds of thousands of dollars for their investment in the dealership, and changed by millions of dollars for their real estate from the amounts listed on the first joint net worth schedule. Petitioners' liabilities also increased by over $ 3 million from *163 the first joint net worth schedule to the second joint net worth schedule.
¶138Additionally, petitioners included an annuity as an asset in the first joint net worth schedule but did not list this asset in the second joint net worth schedule or in their individual net worth schedules. The second joint net worth schedule also included over $ 600,000 in taxes that was not listed on the first joint net worth schedule. Petitioners did not explain any of these discrepancies.
¶139Petitioners supplied no explanation why their calculations of their net worth as of the time the petition in the case was filed changed so drastically in the less than 2 months between the submission of their original motion (which contained the first joint net worth schedule) and their reply to respondent's objection (which contained the second joint net worth schedule and the individual net worth schedules).
¶140Under the circumstances present in this case, we do not feel compelled to accept petitioners' unsubstantiated, conclusory, and self-serving assertion that they meet the net worth requirements. 6 See Estate of Hubberd v. Commissioner, supra; Dixson Intl. Serv. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra;*164 see also McCoy v. Commissioner, supra; cf. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). We conclude that petitioners have failed to prove they meet the net worth requirements necessary to be a "prevailing party" under section 7430(c)(4).
¶141In light of our holding that petitioners failed to prove they meet the net worth requirements, we need not address whether (1) respondent's position was substantially justified; (2) petitioners unreasonably protracted the Court's proceeding; or (3) the amounts of administrative*165 and litigation costs claimed by petitioners are reasonable.
¶142Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to an award of administrative or litigation costs.
¶143To reflect the foregoing,
¶144An appropriate order be issued.
Footnotes
¶1451. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
¶1484. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 1453(a), 111 Stat. 788, 1055 (effective with respect to proceedings commenced after Aug. 5, 1997), amended sec. 7430 to adopt this rule. See sec. 7430(c)(4)(D)(ii), as amended. The petition in this case, however, was filed on Nov. 4, 1996; therefore, this amendment is not applicable herein. Cf. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430↩ (1997).
¶1495. Although the term "net worth" is not statutorily defined, the "acquisition cost" of the asset, rather than the fair market value, should be used. See Swanson v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 96↩ (1996).
¶1506. On Apr. 12, 1999, petitioners filed a "Statement of Errata" in which they state that their joint net worth schedules contained several errors due to "misunderstandings" and "miscommunications". Petitioners attached a third joint net worth schedule that listed their combined net worth as $ 1,097,312. Petitioners submitted no evidence supporting the amounts listed in this schedule. We believe that this submission further supports our conclusions in this case.↩