- 20 -
See Culver v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 189 (2001) (burden of proof
under section 6015 normally on the taxpayer, except under
section 6015(c)(3)(C) actual knowledge test).
Petitioner has met her burden of establishing that the items
making up the deficiency are attributable to intervenor and not
to her. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the
evidence that she had no involvement in the decision to invest in
the Shorthorn partnership or to have the Hoyt organization
prepare their joint income tax returns. She signed none of the
documents for the Shorthorn partnership offered in evidence.
There was no firm credible evidence that petitioner had any
involvement with the Hoyt organization. Intervenor admitted that
he was the one who was introduced to the Hoyt organization by a
coworker. He admitted to attending an introductory Hoyt meeting
and to deciding to participate in the Shorthorn partnership. He
delivered his and petitioner’s tax information to the Hoyt
organization to prepare their tax returns. The deduction of
excessive losses from the Shorthorn partnership is therefore
attributable entirely to intervenor’s activities and his
partnership interest and would have been allocated entirely to
him if the spouses had filed separate returns.8 Petitioner is
8Determinations made under sec. 6015 are made without regard
to community property laws. Sec. 6015(a) (flush language).
Therefore, petitioner’s potential interest in the Shorthorn
partnership as a result of the community property laws is ignored
(continued...)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011