- 19 -
petitioner’s claim of innocent spouse status for 1986 is arguably
moot. We address this innocent spouse issue for 1986, however,
as an alternative issue on which petitioner is relying.
Petitioner also argues that she qualifies as an innocent spouse
for 1987 and 1988 with regard to any understatements in tax
relating to Mr. Makalintal’s sale of his ICPI stock and to the
deposits into Mr. Makalintal and petitioner’s bank accounts.
Generally, where a husband and wife file a joint Federal
income tax return, they are jointly and severally liable for any
tax due. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Ness v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495,
1497 (9th Cir. 1992), revg. 94 T.C. 784 (1990); Guth v.
Commissioner, 897 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.
1987-522; Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959 n.3 (9th Cir.
1989), revg. an Oral Opinion of this Court. An exception to this
general provision is found in section 6013(e), the so-called
innocent spouse provision. A spouse qualifies as an innocent
spouse if the spouse establishes: (1) A joint return was filed;
(2) the return contained a substantial understatement of tax
attributable to grossly erroneous items of the other spouse; (3)
in signing the return, the spouse seeking relief did not know and
had no reason to know of the substantial understatement; and
(4) it would be inequitable to hold the spouse seeking relief
liable for the understatement in question. Sec. 6013(e)(1);
Pietromonaco v. Commissioner, 3 F.3d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir. 1993),
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011