- 22 -
We note that the transitional rule does provide, in
pertinent part, the following:
"(D) without regard to any determination before
October 21, 1988, the other spouse establishes that in
signing the return he or she did not know, and had no
reason to know, that there was such an understatement,
* * * * * * *
notwithstanding any law or rule of law (including res
judicata), the other spouse shall be relieved of
liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and
other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent such
liability is attributable to such understatement,
* * *. [TAMRA sec. 6004, 102 Stat. 3685; emphasis added.]
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has found that
the purpose of the foregoing language is to enable a taxpayer,
who meets the requirements of the transitional rule, to be
relieved of liability for an understatement as an innocent spouse
notwithstanding a decision as to the taxpayer's liability prior
to the enactment of the transitional rule. Park v. Commissioner,
25 F.3d 1289, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-252.
Similarly, another court has concluded that the foregoing
provisions were intended to make the relief afforded by the
transitional rule "available to a person who did not have its
benefit when her case was determined". In re Freytag, 173 Bankr.
330, 334 (N.D. Tex. 1994). We, however, do not need to decide
whether the foregoing language of the transitional rule requires
us to resolve the question whether petitioner qualifies for
relief as an innocent spouse under the transitional rule where it
was first raised in a motion for reconsideration and could have
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011