- 7 -
satisfy the following requirements: (1) That a joint return was
filed; (2) that, on the return, there is a substantial under-
statement of tax; (3) that the understatement is attributable to
grossly erroneous items of the other spouse; (4) that the spouse
seeking relief did not know, and had no reason to know, of the
substantial understatements of tax; and (5) considering all the
facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the
spouse liable for the deficiencies in income tax. Sec. 6013(e).
Failure to meet any one of the statutory requirements will
prevent petitioner from qualifying for relief under section
6013(e). Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993),
affg. 94 T.C. 126, 138 (1990); Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d
470, 473 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986).
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that she is entitled
to relief as an innocent spouse under section 6013(e). Rule
142(a). The parties agree that petitioner and her then husband
filed joint Federal income tax returns for the years in issue and
that there was on each return a substantial understatement of tax
attributable to items of his. Respondent contends, however, that
petitioner is not entitled to innocent spouse relief for the
taxable years in issue because the understatements of tax on the
subject returns are not attributable to grossly erroneous items,
petitioner knew or had reason to know of the understatements, and
it is not inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the deficien-
cies in tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011