Carla J. Zimmerman - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               Normally, spouses who have filed a joint return are jointly            
          and severally liable for the tax due.  Sec. 6013(d)(3).  However,           
          section 6013(e)(1) relieves a spouse of liability for the tax,              
          including interest, penalties, and other amounts, attributable to           
          the substantial understatement of tax of the other spouse, if the           
          spouse meets the following requirements:  (1) A joint Federal               
          income tax return was filed; (2) there is a substantial                     
          understatement of tax attributable to grossly erroneous items of            
          the other spouse; (3) in signing the return, the alleged innocent           
          spouse did not know, and had no reason to know, of the                      
          substantial understatement; and (4) taking into account all the             
          facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the                
          alleged innocent spouse liable for the deficiency attributable to           
          such substantial understatement.  Sec. 6013(e)(1).                          
               The taxpayer has the burden of proving that he or she meets            
          each of these requirements.  Feldman v. Commissioner, 20 F.3d               
          1128, 1134-1135 (11th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-17;                 
          Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1504, (11th Cir. 1989),             
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-63.  A failure to prove any one of these              
          requirements will prevent the taxpayer from qualifying for                  
          relief.  Feldman v. Commissioner, supra at 1135; Stevens v.                 
          Commissioner, supra; Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 138                
          (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993).  Respondent has               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011