David L. Wiksell and Margaret Ann Carpender - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         

          petitioner's reasoning, since we have already concluded that                
          these facts are indications of "reason to know", they cannot form           
          the basis for "actual knowledge" under section 6015(c).  This               
          argument facilely ignores the obvious fact that the "actual                 
          knowledge" concept subsumes the concept of "reason to know";                
          i.e., if a person has actual knowledge of a fact, she also has              
          reason to know of it (the converse, of course, not necessarily              
          being true).                                                                
               Petitioner's argument is illogical, and we find it                     
          unpersuasive.  Our opinion in Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          1998-3, does not indicate that we inferred petitioner's actual              
          knowledge "based on indications that the electing spouse had a              
          reason to know."  H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, supra at 253.  We think           
          in this particular case that the same facts used to determine               
          that petitioner "had reason to know" also amply establish that              
          petitioner had "actual knowledge" or a "precise awareness".                 
               Petitioner further argues that section 6015(c) has changed             
          the culpability standard from objective under section 6013(e) to            
          subjective.  Under section 6013(e)(1)(C), a taxpayer spouse must            
          establish "that in signing the return he or she did not know, and           
          had no reason to know, that there was * * * [a] substantial                 
          understatement".  Petitioner points out that findings of                    
          objectivity dominate the record.  As such, petitioner concludes,            
          our findings and holdings are consistent with the objective                 
          standard, and accordingly, reconsideration is warranted.                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011