5
tax code at the time it was also engaged in antiquated
paternalistic thought." Petitioner argues that joint and several
liability should be treated as a rebuttable presumption. We are
unpersuaded by petitioner's arguments. The version of section
6013(d)(3) in effect for the year in issue is identical to
section 6013(d)(3) as interpreted by the Court in Garfinkel.
When a joint return is filed, joint and several liability is
clearly imposed by statute. Such liability may be avoided in
limited circumstances where innocent spouse relief is appropriate
or it is shown that a spouse's signature is obtained through
duress. See sec. 6013(e); Brown v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 116
(1968); Estate of Pearson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-366,
affd. 890 F.2d 353 (11th Cir. 1989). Petitioner has not alleged
or shown that any of these exceptions applies.
With respect to Robert Severt's tax liability for 1993, the
notice of deficiency was issued before the expiration of the 18-
month period for assessment under section 6501(d). Moreover, the
shortened period for assessment under section 6501(d) does not
apply to petitioner, as decedent was jointly and severally liable
for any tax due.
Petitioner argues that the doctrine of estoppel applies to
prevent respondent from determining a deficiency. Petitioner
contends that the no-change letter sent in response to the prompt
assessment request filed with respect to Robert Severt's tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011