- 20 -
Because the Court finds petitioners liable for the $29
deficiency and the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and
6654, we must address Mrs. Wilkinson's argument that she is an
innocent spouse under section 6013(e). Mrs. Wilkinson claims
that she neither knew nor had reason to know of the unreported
income or the untimeliness of the returns.
Spouses are generally jointly and severally liable for the
tax due on a joint Federal income tax return.4 Sec. 6013(d)(3);
Friedman v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d 523, 525 (2d Cir. 1995), affg.
in part and revg. and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1993-549;
Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1259 (2d Cir. 1993), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1992-228. This is so "regardless of the source of the
income or of the fact that one spouse may be far less informed
about the contents of the return than the other". Murphy v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 111, 117 (1994); Sonnenborn v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 373, 381 (1971).
A spouse may obtain limited relief from joint and several
liability pursuant to section 6013(e). The "innocent spouse"
provision of section 6013(e) relieves a spouse of joint Federal
income tax liability if each of the following four requirements
is met: (1) A joint Federal income tax return was filed by the
4 As a threshold argument, Mrs. Wilkinson claims that she
cannot be held liable for the additions to tax because she did
not have any independent income for the years in issue and had no
duty to file a Federal income tax return. We disagree. It is
undisputed that joint returns were filed for the years in issue.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011