- 2 -
Friedman (petitioner) was not an innocent spouse within the
meaning of section 6013(e).3 The decision entered following the
third opinion was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the
case was remanded to this Court for further proceedings.
Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-549, affd. in part and
revd. in part 53 F.3d 523 (2d Cir. 1995).
To qualify for innocent spouse relief, a taxpayer must meet
all four of the requirements of section 6013(e). We found that
petitioner had shown that she filed a joint return and that a
certain tax shelter investment constituted a "grossly erroneous
item" within the meaning of section 6013(e). However, we found
that petitioner did not qualify for relief because she failed to
meet the third requirement; i.e., the requirement that she did
not know and did not have reason to know that the deduction would
give rise to a substantial understatement. Having reached that
conclusion, we did not consider whether petitioner met the fourth
2(...continued)
whether "grossly erroneous items" could have been contained on a
refund claim, Form 1045, rather than on the Form 1040, within the
meaning of sec. 6013(e)(1)(B); Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-89, concerning whether the testimony of an expert
witness could be offered to show whether one of petitioners was a
truthful witness; and Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-
549, which concerned whether Anna Friedman was an innocent spouse
within the meaning of sec. 6013(e).
3 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the taxable period under consideration, and all
Rule references are to this Court's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011