- 11 -
substantial understatement, we must take into account all the
facts and circumstances. Sec. 6013(e)(1)(D). In addition,
Congress has expressed a clear intent that, in making this
determination, we consider whether a taxpayer benefited from the
erroneous items. H. Rept. 98-432 (part 2), at 1501-1502 (1984).
Such a determination is factual in nature. See Sanders v. United
States, supra at 170.
Martha would have us decide this issue and grant summary
judgment relieving her of liability based on her unverified
assertions. However, the issue of whether Martha is an innocent
spouse is not ripe for summary judgment. We conclude that there
are genuine issues of material fact which should properly be
considered at trial.
In her motion, Martha argues that the District Court's
decision with respect to the Federal forfeiture claim supports a
finding of innocent spouse in the present action. We will
briefly discuss the applicability of the District Court action on
the current proceeding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The District Court action was a Federal civil forfeiture
proceeding. The proceeding was based on a cause of action
entirely different from that which is present in this case;
namely, Charles' liability for Federal income tax under the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the principles
of collateral estoppel may operate to bar the relitigation of a
fact which has actually been found in a prior case, even though
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011