- 154 -
year (sec. 6013(e)(1)(A)); (2) on this tax return there is a
substantial understatement of tax (sec. 6013(e)(1)(B)); (3) this
substantial understatement of tax is attributable to grossly
erroneous items (sec. 6013(e)(1)(B)); (4) the grossly erroneous
items are items of the other (the putative “guilty”) spouse (sec.
6013(e)(1)(B)); (5) when the tax return was signed, the putative
innocent spouse did not know, and had no reason to know, that
there was this substantial understatement of tax (sec.
6013(e)(1)(C)); and (6) it is inequitable to hold the putative
innocent spouse liable for the tax deficiency that is
attributable to this substantial understatement of tax (sec.
6013(e)(1)(D)).
The spouse seeking relief has the burden of proof on each of
these requirements. Rule 142(a); Purcell v. Commissioner, 826
F.2d 470, 473 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986); Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 138. Because the statute is phrased in
the conjunctive, failure to prove any one of the requirements
will prevent the taxpayer from qualifying for relief. Hayman v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1260 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1992-228; Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1134, 94 T.C.
at 138; Clevenger v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d at 1382.
These factors, taken together with the well-established
principle that exemptions from taxation are to be narrowly
construed, place a significant burden on the taxpayer. United
Page: Previous 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011