- 23 -
her reported adjusted gross income for the tax year at issue.
See Pietromonaco v. Commissioner, 3 F.3d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir.
1993), revg. T.C. Memo. 1991-361. Based upon the foregoing, Mrs.
Meyer should have known of the income-producing transaction the
putative culpable spouse failed to report on their joint return,
thus giving rise to the substantial understatement.
Issue 3. Whether It Is Inequitable to Hold Petitioner Liable for
the Substantial Understatement of Tax
The Court finds it not inequitable to hold Mrs. Meyer liable
for the substantial understatement of tax. A taxpayer claiming
innocent spouse relief must demonstrate that, given all of the
facts and circumstances, it would contravene equitable notions to
hold the petitioner liable for the substantial understatement
attributable to the putative culpable spouse. Sec.
6013(e)(1)(D).
In determining whether it is inequitable to hold a spouse
jointly liable, we have in the past considered the following
factors: (1) Whether the petitioner has enjoyed a significant
benefit as a result of the substantial understatement of tax,
Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 678 (1989); (2)
whether the petitioner has been deserted by, divorced, or
separated from the putative culpable spouse, section 1.6013-5(b),
Income Tax Regs.; and (3) all other relevant facts and
circumstances. Sec. 6013(e)(1)(D). The statute no longer
requires consideration of whether the innocent spouse received a
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011