- 14 -
were substantial understatements of tax and that the
understatements were attributable to grossly erroneous items of
Gerald; (3) that, in signing the returns, she did not know, or
have reason to know, of the substantial understatements; and (4)
that taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it
would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiencies.
Sec. 6013(e)(1)(A) through (D). Petitioner has the burden of
proving that she had met each requirement of section 6013(e).
Rule 142(a); Russo v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 28, 31-32 (1992). A
failure to meet any one of the requirements will preclude
petitioner from relief. Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499,
1504 (11th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-63; Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 138 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th
Cir. 1993). Section 6013(e)(3) states the numerical prerequisite
to determine whether a substantial understatement exists, and
section 6013(e)(4) concerns whether such understatements exceed a
specified percentage of the putative innocent spouse's income.
Respondent concedes that petitioner satisfies the requirements of
section 6013(e)(3) and (4). The parties agree that there were
substantial understatements of tax attributable to items of
Gerald for each of the years in issue.
We first decide whether the Jacobys filed a joint return for
each of the taxable years 1978 and 1980. Whether petitioner
intended to file a joint return is a question of fact. O'Connor
v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 304, 309 (2d Cir. 1969), affg. in part
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011