- 35 -
to hold the alleged innocent spouse liable for the deficiency
attributable to such substantial understatement. Sec.
6013(e)(1).
Mrs. Gaskins and Mrs. Quinn each have the burden of
proving that she meets these requirements. Rule 142(a). A
petitioner who fails to meet all of the requirements of section
6013(e)(1) will not qualify for innocent spouse relief.
Purificato v. Commissioner, 9 F.3d 290, 293 (3d Cir. 1993),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-580; Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d
470, 473 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986); Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 138 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th
Cir. 1993). Respondent has conceded that both Mrs. Gaskins and
Mrs. Quinn meet the first two requirements of section
6013(e)(1). We shall consider each petitioner in turn with
respect to the remaining two requirements.
Mrs. Gaskins
Knowledge of the Understatement
Mrs. Gaskins argues that she had no actual knowledge, nor
did she have reason to know, of any diverted receipts from West
Pine or substantial understatements of tax, and therefore, she
should be afforded relief as an innocent spouse. Respondent
contends that Mrs. Gaskins has not established her lack of
knowledge or that she had no reason to know.
A taxpayer seeking innocent spouse relief must establish
that he or she in signing the return did not know, and had no
reason to know, that there was a substantial understatement of
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011