Philip H. Friedman and Anna Friedman - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          Friedman (petitioner) was an innocent spouse within the meaning             
          of section 6013(e).2  The parties' current controversy involves             
          their conflicting Rule 155 tax computations.                                
               Initially, we found that petitioner was not entitled to                
          innocent spouse relief with respect to two items.  Concerning the           
          capital loss carryover, we found it was not a grossly erroneous             
          item and that it did not meet the section 6013(e) requirements.             
          The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that              
          holding.  Regarding losses from a computer leasing transaction,             
          we found the deductions of those losses to be grossly erroneous             
          items.  However, we also found that petitioner failed to meet the           
          requirement that she did not know, or have reason to know, that             
          the deductions would give rise to substantial understatements               
          when she signed the returns.  Sec. 6013(e)(1)(C).  The Court of             
          Appeals reversed our finding on whether petitioner knew or had              

               1(...continued)                                                        
          1045, rather than on the Form 1040; 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; Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-549,            
          affd. in part, revd. and remanded in part 53 F.3d 523 (2d Cir.              
          1995), which concerned whether Anna Friedman was an innocent                
          spouse within the meaning of sec. 6013(e); and Friedman v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-576, where we held that Anna                  
          Friedman was an innocent spouse with respect to a grossly                   
          erroneous item in accord with the judgment and remand of the                
          Court of Appeals and made findings concerning whether it was                
          equitable to hold her liable.                                               
               2 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011