Estate of Doris J. Severt, Deceased, Denise M. Harple, Executor - Page 4

                                          4                                           
               Section 6013(d)(3) provides: "if a joint return is made, the           
          tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and the liability             
          with respect to the tax shall be joint and several."  One of the            
          fundamental characteristics of joint and several liability is               
          that the obligee (respondent) may proceed against the obligors              
          (joint taxpayers) separately and may obtain a separate judgment             
          against each.  Dolan v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 420, 427 (1965).              
               In Garfinkel v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1028 (1977), the                 
          taxpayer filed a joint income tax return for 1972 with her                  
          husband, who died during that year.  A request for prompt                   
          assessment was made with respect to his income tax liability for            
          that year.  Approximately 13 or 14 months later, the IRS sent a             
          reply that the return was accepted as filed.  In considering                
          whether the Commissioner was barred from issuing a notice of                
          deficiency in 1972 income tax to the taxpayer alone, the Court              
          first noted that the time for the IRS to make an assessment as to           
          her former husband expired 18 months after the request for prompt           
          assessment was made. Id. at 1032.  However, as to the taxpayer,             
          the Court held that because the normal 3-year period of                     
          limitations had not expired as to any liability which she might             
          have, the notice of deficiency was valid as to her because she              
          was severally liable for the tax.  Id. at 1032-1033.                        
               Petitioner argues that we should not follow Garfinkel                  
          because the Court was "construing an antiquated version of the              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011