Eugene McClelland and Ione McClelland - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
                    a.  Section 6015(b)(1)(C):  Know or Reason To Know                
               A spouse seeking relief under section 6015(b) must not have            
          known or had a reason to know at the time of signing a joint                
          return that there was an understatement of tax on the return.               
          Sec. 6015(b)(1).  The general rule in an omission of income case            
          is the relief-seeking spouse knew or had reason to know of an               
          understatement of tax if she knew of the transaction that gave              
          rise to the understatement.  Erdahl v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d               
          585, 589 (8th Cir. 1991), revg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1990-              
          101; Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 115.  However, in deduction           
          cases, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has adopted a            
          different standard, following Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959           
          (9th Cir. 1989), revg. an Oral Opinion of this Court.  Erdahl v.            
          Commissioner, supra at 589.                                                 
               Under this standard, a spouse has reason to know if “‘a                
          reasonably prudent taxpayer under the circumstances of the spouse           
          at the time of signing the return could be expected to know that            
          the tax liability stated was erroneous or that further                      
          investigation was warranted.’”  Id. at 590 (quoting Stevens v.              
          Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir. 1989)).  The more              
          the relief-seeking spouse knows about a transaction, “‘the more             
          likely it is that she will know or have reason to know that the             
          deduction arising from that transaction may not be valid.’”  Id.            
          at 598 n.6 (quoting Price v. Commissioner, supra at 963 n.9).               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011