- 10 -
under section 6013(e) that were contested,7 tried, and briefed by
the parties but were not addressed in our prior Opinion. The
present record in the instant case is sufficient for us to decide
the other undecided requirements for innocent spouse relief under
section 6013(e).8 For the reasons set forth below, we conclude
7
Respondent concedes that petitioner meets certain of the
requirements for relief as an innocent spouse provided by sec.
6013(e).
8
Petitioner requests that we reopen the record to permit her
to introduce, inter alia, her transcript from the University of
Guelph to show that she took no courses in any tax, business, or
financial subject, majored in English, and was "an extremely
indifferent student". Petitioner contends that, after the trial
of the instant case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
announced a requirement for innocent spouse relief that a
taxpayer's education be taken into account in deciding whether
the taxpayer knew or had reason to know of the existence of a
substantial understatement under sec. 6013(e)(1)(C). Friedman v.
Commissioner, 53 F.3d 523, 531-532 (2d Cir. 1995), affg. in part,
revg. in part, and remanding T.C. Memo. 1993-549; Hayman v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.
1992-228. Petitioner argues that the "new" requirement renders
relevant petitioner's university transcript and the other
evidence she seeks to admit and that such relevance could not
have been anticipated at the time of such trial. Petitioner
admits, however, that the requirement for innocent spouse relief
adopted by the Second Circuit had been articulated by other
courts prior to the trial of the instant case. See, e.g., Price
v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1989), revg. an Oral
Opinion of this Court.
We do not agree with petitioner that she could not have been
aware of the relevance of the evidence she now seeks to introduce
simply because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, at
the time the instant case was tried, had yet to issue its
opinions requiring that a taxpayer's education level be taken
into consideration. Moreover, petitioner contends that, even
without such evidence, the record developed at the trial of the
instant case is sufficient to support a finding that she did not
know and had no reason to know of the existence of the
(continued...)
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