- 6 -
public law. This latter computation arrives at the
amount of the liability which is considered joint. The
difference between such joint liability and the total
deficiency will constitute the separate liability of
the culpable spouse. * * *
It is noted that respondent's manual provisions have no
binding effect on petitioner or the Court. See, e.g., Zimmerman
v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), and cases cited
therein, affd. without published opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir.
1979) (involving the lack of effect of a taxpayer's reliance upon
a tax guide issued by the Commissioner). Petitioner, however,
agrees with respondent that the above-quoted manual provisions
"[set] forth how the computation should be made."
Petitioner agrees with respondent that the first step is to
begin with the notice of deficiency computation of the income tax
deficiency and additions to tax. Petitioner also agrees that the
next step is to compute the separate liability of the so-called
nonculpable or innocent spouse, which, according to the manual
provisions, is the portion of the liability that is considered
joint. And, finally, the difference between the joint liability
and the total liability constitutes the individual liability of
the so-called culpable spouse.
The core of petitioner's disagreement with respondent is the
computation of the liability of the innocent spouse, which is
also the portion of the liability that is joint.5 Petitioner
5 Petitioner does not allege that respondent's mathematical
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011