- 3 -
Background
In her motion, as supplemented, petitioner requests, inter
alia, that we reconsider our prior Opinion and either decide that
she qualifies for relief as an innocent spouse based on the
evidence already in the record or reopen the record to allow
introduction of additional evidence in support of her claim that
she qualifies for relief as an innocent spouse. Petitioner's
requests are based on the following contentions: (1) That newly
available evidence establishes that the deductions in issue are
"grossly erroneous items" within the meaning of section
6013(e)(2); (2) that respondent's counsel at the trial of the
instant case violated Rule 201 and rule 3.3(a)(3) of the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in not disclosing
certain information petitioner alleges is relevant to that
question; and (3) that petitioner is entitled to relief as an
innocent spouse pursuant to the transitional rule of section 6004
of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA),
4(...continued)
holding that such deductions were not attributable to "grossly
erroneous items" rendered it unnecessary for us to decide whether
petitioner satisfied the other requirements of that subsection
that were contested by petitioner and respondent (viz: (1) In
signing the returns in issue petitioner did not know and had no
reason to know of the existence of the understatements in issue
and (2) it would be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the
deficiencies resulting from those understatements).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011