- 32 -
Wodlinger that “he was not going to have that defense raised.”
Second, he has not demonstrated to us that his wife had any
substantial separate assets or, even if she did, that he would
have any claim to those assets should respondent choose to pursue
him for the full amount of the settlement figures in the docketed
cases in which he and Mary Wheaton are petitioners. In any
event, section 6013(d)(3) imposes joint and several liability for
the tax on spouses making a joint return of income, and,
therefore, Frank Wheaton’s liability is independent of the
existence of Mary Wheaton’s separate assets.
F. Rescission
Lastly, Dorchester and Frank Wheaton argue that respondent
has rescinded her agreement with Dorchester and Frank Wheaton by
entering into a subsequent agreement with Mary Wheaton allowing
her to claim innocent spouse relief (the innocent spouse
agreement). Dorchester and Frank Wheaton claim that Mary
Wheaton’s assets are no longer available to satisfy the
“$40 million settlement”: “Respondent’s counsel has unilaterally
pulled the rug out from under Mr. Wheaton.”
As a preliminary matter, we fail to see how that argument
benefits Dorchester. On the facts as we understand them, nothing
in the Code or the settlement agreement makes either Mary or
Frank Wheaton responsible for Dorchester’s liability or vice
versa. Dorchester has failed to show any protected right or
interest that is affected by respondent’s agreement with Mary
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011