Spencer M. and Suzanne J. Stillman - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

               It is agreed that, except in the case of fraud, misrepresentation,     
               or other action of which Suzanne had no knowledge or control, the      
               following obligations are to be considered community obligations:      
                                     * * * * * * *                                    
                    (B)  Any obligation for unpaid taxes, penalties, and              
                    interest, for years in which joint returns were filed,            
                    except to the extent that Suzanne would be entitled to            
                    relief under the "innocent spouse" rule.                          
                    (C)  Any obligation to the IRS or to certain holders              
                    of notes with respect to the oil and gas shelters as              
                    listed in the income tax returns.                                 
          On October 22, 1990, a Further Judgment on Reserved Issues (the Further     
          Judgment) was entered by the court in the divorce case.  The Further Judgment
          contained a provision which relieved either party of liability for unpaid   
          income taxes; i.e., "to the extent either party is relieved, in whole or in 
          part, of any liability in connection therewith pursuant to section 6013 of the
          Internal Revenue Code or any successor statute (and/or any similar provision
          of California law)."  Petitioner was generally aware of the terms and       
          negotiations which led to the Further Judgment, but she did not pay close   
          attention to any provisions related to taxes because she did not understand 
          them.  Petitioner looked to the Hochman firm for guidance as to the tax case
          and did not discuss or rely on her divorce attorney with respect to any issues
          relating to that case.  Instead, she believed she had retained separate     
          specialists (tax and divorce) for separate actions (Tax Court case and divorce
          case).                                                                      
               In a notice of deficiency dated October 14, 1992, respondent determined
          deficiencies in petitioners' 1982 and 1983 Federal income taxes with respect
          to the same MAR Oil partnerships at issue in 1981.  Steve Mather and Elliott
          H. Kajan timely filed a petition in response to the notice of deficiency.  It
          became Docket No. 28098-92.  A decision was entered in that case on April 14,
          1994, in which petitioner was relieved of any liability for the deficiencies
          relating to the MAR Oil partnership based upon her qualification as an      
          innocent spouse.                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011