- 24 -
Respondent does not dispute that petitioner meets the
requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (E) of section 6015(b)(1)
but contends that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements
of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 6015(b)(1).
Petitioner disagrees.
With respect to subparagraph (B) of section 6015(b)(1),
petitioner argues that the understatement of tax is attributable
entirely to the erroneous items of Mr. Abelein because the
investment in DGE was not a joint investment, and Mr. Abelein was
solely responsible for the partnership investment. Respondent
argues that the understatement of tax is not solely attributable
to the erroneous items of Mr. Abelein because both petitioner and
Mr. Abelein owned the partnership interest in DGE, and petitioner
participated in the investment. Respondent relies on Ellison v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-57, to support his position.
In Ellison v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the taxpayer
failed to prove that the understatement of tax was solely
attributable to the erroneous items of the nonrequesting spouse
under section 6015(b)(1)(B) because the requesting spouse was a
partner in the Hoyt partnerships, agreed to invest in the Hoyt
partnerships, and did so jointly with her spouse. The taxpayer
in Ellison also signed partnership documents and checks payable
to the Hoyt organization and used funds from a joint account she
held with her spouse to invest in the partnership. The Hoyt
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011