- 18 -
also Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 288
(1929)3, and the assessment made on June 17, 1985, was not a
final determination of tax, the Form 872-A did not terminate.
Instead, it terminated when the notice of deficiency was sent.
We next consider the innocent spouse issue. The innocent
spouse provisions of the Internal Revenue Code provide that a
spouse is relieved of liability for tax attributable to an
understatement of tax on a return in cases where: (a) A joint
return has been filed for the taxable year; (b) on the return
there is a substantial understatement of tax attributable to
grossly erroneous items of one spouse; (c) the other spouse
establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know,
and had no reason to know, that there was such an understatement;
and (d) taking into account all of the facts and circumstances,
it is inequitable to hold the other spouse liable for the
deficiency in tax attributable to the understatement. Sec.
6013(e)(1).
Failure to prove any one of the four elements set forth in
section 6013(e)(1) prevents a taxpayer from qualifying for relief
under the “innocent spouse rule”. Park v. Commissioner, 25 F.3d
1289, 1292 (5th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-252.
Petitioners have the burden of proving all four elements. Estate
of Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 677 (1989).
3
See also Fudim v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-235.
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