- 9 -
the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be inequitable
to hold her liable for the deficiency attributable to the
understatement. Sec. 6013(e)(1); Reser v. Commissioner, 112 F.3d
1258, 1267 (5th Cir. 1997), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C.
Memo. 1995-572; United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 314
(5th Cir. 1994); Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672,
676 (1989). Ms. Evans' failure to satisfy any one of these
elements precludes "innocent spouse" relief. Reser v.
Commissioner, supra at 1263; United States v. Shanbaum, supra at
315; Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, supra at 677.
With respect to each of the subject years, we agree with
Ms. Evans that she meets the first requirement for innocent
spouse relief; i.e., the filing of a joint return. We part
company with her, however, when we turn to the other
requirements. With respect to the deduction issue in each of the
subject years,4 we are unable to find a substantial
understatement of tax. A substantial understatement would be
present if the tax in dispute exceeded an amount based on
Ms. Evans' adjusted gross income for 1995. Sec. 6013(e)(3) and
(4). We do not know Ms. Evans' gross income for 1995. Although
she asks the Court in her reply brief to reopen the record to
4 Ms. Evans asks the Court in her brief to consider this
issue to be an unreported income issue. We decline to do so.
Petitioners did not fail to report the income from oil and gas
royalties. They included it on their Forms 1040, and they
claimed a deduction with respect thereto.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011