- 23 -
been raised in prior proceedings. Even were we to consider
petitioner's claim for relief under the provisions of the
transitional rule, we would nevertheless conclude that she does
not satisfy its requirements.
As with the requirements for relief under section 6013(e), a
taxpayer must establish that all of the conditions imposed by the
transitional rule are satisfied in order to be eligible for
relief under that rule. Park v. Commissioner, supra at 1300. We
have held above that petitioner did not satisfy the knowledge
requirement of section 6013(e)(1)(C), in that she did not
establish that, in signing the returns in issue, she "did not
know, and had no reason to know" of the understatements in issue.
Recently, in Park v. Commissioner, supra at 1300, the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that
The "did not know, and had no reason to know"
language of the transitional rule virtually mirrors
that of section 6013(e), suggesting that Congress
intended the "no reason to know" requirement of both
provisions to have the same meaning.
Consequently, in order to obtain relief under the transitional
rule, petitioner must, under subparagraph (D) of that rule, make
the same showing that she is required to make under section
6013(e)(1)(C). Petitioner has failed show that she satisfies the
test of subsection 6013(e)(1)(C) and therefore would also fail to
establish that she satisfies the test of subparagraph (D) of the
transitional rule. Accordingly, petitioner could not find relief
as an innocent spouse under the provisions of the transitional
rule.
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