Estate of Carlos A. Vega, Deceased, Trinidad O. Vega, Administratrix, and Trinidad O. Vega - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               Section 6013(d)(3) provides the general rule imposing joint            
          and several liability on spouses that file a joint return.  The             
          so-called innocent spouse provision of section 6013(e) is an                
          exception to this general rule.  Under section 6013(e), Mrs. Vega           
          will be relieved of liability for tax (including interest,                  
          penalties, and other amounts) if she establishes that:  (1) A               
          joint Federal income tax return was filed; (2) there is a                   
          substantial understatement of tax attributable to grossly                   
          erroneous items of Mr. Vega; (3) in signing the return, Mrs. Vega           
          did not know, and had no reason to know, of the substantial                 
          understatement; and (4) taking into account all of the facts and            
          circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold Mrs. Vega liable             
          for the deficiency attributable to such substantial                         
          understatement.  Mrs. Vega bears the burden of proving she meets            
          each of the four elements.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290            
          U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Her failure to establish any of the                  
          elements will preclude innocent spouse relief.  Bokum v.                    
          Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 138 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th            
          Cir. 1993).                                                                 
               We hold that Mrs. Vega does not qualify for protection as an           
          innocent spouse for 1988 and 1989.  Mrs. Vega has failed to                 
          establish that (1) the deductions totaling $64,725 in 1988 and              
          $26,421 in 1989 were attributable to grossly erroneous items, and           
          (2) it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the amounts at           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011