-13-
Respondent objects, asserting that petitioner is precluded as a
matter of law from being able to qualify as an innocent spouse with
respect to the three adjustments in this case, i.e., the Investors
Mining Program 77-5, the "London Options" futures contracts, and the
Six Star Cablevision Management Corp. adjustments.
In opposing petitioner's request to assert an innocent spouse
defense for the first time, respondent relies on Russo v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 28, 31 (1992), in which we denied a taxpayer's
motion for leave to file an amendment to the petition to raise an
innocent spouse defense. We therein concluded that such a belated
amendment would be inconsistent with justice. Rule 41(a).
We agree with respondent's position. Petitioner's innocent
spouse claim is clearly untimely. See id.; Bernard v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-332.7 Nevertheless, we are reluctant to rest our
decision solely on the belatedness of the claim. See Wilson v.
Commissioner, 500 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1974), revg. and remanding T.C.
Memo. 1973-92. Accordingly, we shall discuss whether petitioner has
proven that she might prevail upon her innocent spouse claim with
respect to the adjustments determined in the notice of deficiency.
Spouses who file a joint income tax return generally are
jointly and severally liable for its accuracy and the tax due,
including any additional taxes, interest, or penalties determined
7 Petitioner's untimely late-hour assertion of innocent
spouse has many of the earmarks of a proceeding maintained by the
taxpayer primarily for delay. See sec. 6673(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011