- 8 -
substantial understatement. Sec. 6013(e)(1), as amended by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 424(a), 98
Stat. 801-802; Purcell v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 228, 235 (1986),
affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987). Petitioner bears the burden
of establishing that each of the four requirements of section
6013(e) has been satisfied. Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d at
473; Sonnenborn v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 373, 381-383 (1971).
The requirements of section 6013(e) are conjunctive rather
than alternative; a failure to meet any of the requirements
prevents a spouse from qualifying for relief under section
6013(e). Cohen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-537; Estate of
Killian v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-365; Levin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-67. The parties agree that
petitioner and Mr. French filed a joint return for the taxable
year in issue. The parties also agree, and we find, that there
is a substantial understatement of tax attributable to a grossly
erroneous item of Mr. French’s for the taxable year in issue.
Whether petitioner fulfilled the remaining requirements of
section 6013(e), however, is disputed.
Section 6013(e)(1)(D)--Inequitable
Petitioner must prove that, given the facts and
circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the
deficiency attributable to Mr. French’s substantial
understatement. Sec. 6013(e)(1)(D); sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax
Regs. Section 6013(e), as amended, no longer requires us to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011