- 33 -
Wheaton. Dorchester is entitled to no relief on account of
respondent’s agreement with Mary Wheaton.
Also, we fail to see that any protected right or interest of
Frank Wheaton is affected by the innocent spouse agreement.
First, nothing in either the November 3 letter, the November 6
letter, or the November 6 response makes Frank Wheaton’s income
tax liability contingent in any way upon Mary Wheaton’s
continuing to be liable for her joint return liability. Second,
section 6013(d)(3) provides that the signers of a joint return
are jointly and severally liable for any tax due. That fact was
a significant factor in our denying relief to taxpayers making
claims similar to Frank Wheaton’s in Himmelwright v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-114, and Garvey v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-354. Frank Wheaton’s primary concern appears to
be economic; he expected Mary Wheaton to contribute to payment of
the deficiency. As explained in Estate of Ravetti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-45, however, the right of
contribution with which Frank Wheaton is concerned is a matter to
be resolved under State law. Frank Wheaton is entitled to no
relief on account of respondent’s agreement with Mary Wheaton.
III. Conclusion
Dorchester, Frank Wheaton, and respondent entered into a
settlement agreement in the docketed cases. For the reasons
stated, we shall (1) grant respondent’s motion with respect to
Dorchester in docket No. 20515-93, (2) grant respondent’s motions
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