- 26 -
The spouse seeking relief has the burden of proof on each of
these requirements. Rule 142(a);7 Purcell v. Commissioner, 826
F.2d 470, 473 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986); Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 138. Because the statute is phrased in
the conjunctive, failure to prove any one of the requirements
will prevent the taxpayer from qualifying for relief. Hayman v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1260; Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d
at 475 n. 6; Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1134, 94 T.C. at
138.
These factors, taken together with the well-established
principle that exemptions from taxation are to be narrowly
construed, place a significant burden on the taxpayer. United
States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 71 (1940); Matthews v.
Commissioner, 907 F.2d 1173, 1174, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1990), affg.
92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989); Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 155,
and cases there cited.
The parties agree that the following requirements have been
satisfied: (1) Nancy and Sheldon filed a joint tax return for
1981;8 (2) the understatement of tax on the tax return is
substantial; (3) the substantial understatement of tax is
7 Unless indicated otherwise, all rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
8 The parties have stipulated that the 1981 tax return was a
joint tax return, even though Nancy did not sign it, and we have
so found. See Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1,
12-14 (1971), and cases there cited.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011