- 20 -
whether petitioner had actual knowledge, to confirm that no
disqualified assets had been transferred to petitioner, or to
confirm that no assets had been transferred between petitioner
and Mr. Owen as part of a fraudulent scheme. Respondent also
argues that when the answer was filed, the deficiencies at issue
could not be allocated between petitioner and Mr. Owen under
section 6015(d) because the parties disagreed about whether and
to what extent the investment in DGE was attributable to
petitioner.
We reject respondent’s justification for his administrative
and litigation position for several reasons. First, respondent’s
argument that he lacked sufficient information to make a
determination under section 6015 and that the lack of information
was somehow petitioner’s fault is completely unsupported by the
record for purposes of this motion. Petitioner attached to her
Form 8857, dated July 21, 2000, a detailed recitation of the
relevant facts supporting her request for relief. In
petitioner’s statement of disagreement dated September 14, 2001,
appealing the Service’s denial of relief under section 6015,
petitioner stated that she had no actual knowledge of the items
giving rise to the liabilities in question and provided
respondent with another detailed statement of the facts in
support of her argument that she was entitled to section 6015(c)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011