The putative innocent spouse has the burden of proving that
each of the foregoing requirements is satisfied. Rule 142(a);
Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 138 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d
1132 (11th Cir. 1993). Failure to satisfy any of the
requirements will preclude a holding that the putative innocent
spouse is entitled to relief under section 6013(e). Stevens v.
Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1988-63.
The parties agree that petitioner and Mr. Woodward filed
joint income tax returns for the taxable years 1980 through 1983.
The parties also agree that the credits claimed by petitioner and
Mr. Woodward for the taxable years 1980 and 1981 are grossly
erroneous items giving rise to understatements of tax for those
years. Although it is far from apparent, we shall proceed on the
basis that the grossly erroneous items were items of Mr.
Woodward. Further, the parties agree that the substantial
understatements of tax exceeded the requisite percentage of
income in 1987, the preadjustment year. Therefore, in order to
be relieved of liability as an innocent spouse, petitioner must
prove: (1) In signing the income tax return for 1983 and the
application for refund, she neither knew, nor had reason to know,
of the substantial understatements of tax on her refund claims
for 1980 and 1981; and (2) it would be inequitable to hold her
liable for the deficiencies attributable to such understatements.
Sec. 6013(e)(1)(C) and (D).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011