- 11 -
that petitioner has failed to satisfy all of the requirements for
relief as an innocent spouse provided by section 6013(e) and has
failed to satisfy all of the transitional rule requirements as
well. Accordingly, we need not reconsider the holding of our
prior Opinion that the deductions claimed on the returns for the
taxable years in issue are "grossly erroneous items" within the
meaning of section 6013(e)(2)(B).9
Our first consideration is whether, for taxable years 1980
and 1981, petitioner has established the requirements of section
6013(e)(1)(C) that, in signing each of the returns for those
years, "she did not know, and had no reason to know," that a
substantial understatement of tax exists as to each such return.
Respondent contends that petitioner has failed to establish,
inter alia, that she did not know and had no reason to know of
the substantial understatements in issue when she signed the
returns for the taxable years in issue, and that petitioner
8(...continued)
substantial understatements in issue. We accordingly will not
reopen the record to admit additional evidence with respect to
the requirements of sec. 6013(e)(1)(C).
9
As to petitioner's allegation that respondent's counsel
violated Rule 201 and rule 3.3(a)(3) of the Model Rules, the
misconduct asserted by petitioner relates only to evidence
potentially pertinent to the "grossly erroneous items" issue.
Because we hold that petitioner is otherwise not entitled to
relief under sec. 6013(e), and, because of such holding, do not
reconsider our prior holding with respect to the "grossly
erroneous items" issue, we need not, and we do not, address that
allegation in disposing of the instant motion.
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