- 7 -
directs us to a specific portion of the manual provisions, as
follows:
This computation will start with the total corrected
taxable income without regard to the innocent spouse
provisions and will eliminate therefrom the adjustments
for which relief is provided under such public law.
* * *
Petitioner contends that the elimination of the grossly erroneous
leasing transaction is tantamount to permitting the deduction to
the innocent spouse. Respondent treats the elimination language
as disregarding the grossly erroneous leasing transaction so as
not to charge petitioner, the innocent spouse, with income from
the disallowance of the claimed loss. Respondent goes on to
compute the effect of the disallowance of the short-term capital
loss carryover, which is not an item for which innocent spouse
relief was granted. In that manner, respondent arrives at a
portion of the 1983 tax liability for which Mr. Friedman (the
"culpable" spouse) and Mrs. Friedman (the "nonculpable" spouse)
are both liable. That joint liability is then subtracted from
the liability determined in the notice of deficiency, resulting
in the portion of the liability for which only Mr. Friedman (the
"culpable" spouse) is liable. We agree with respondent's
approach and interpretation.
5(...continued)
computation is in error. Petitioner's attack is one that
concerns only theory or approach.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011