- 2 -
P contends that she is an innocent spouse pursuant to
sec. 6015(b)(1), I.R.C. Additionally, P contends that it
was an abuse of R's discretion not to allow equitable relief
pursuant to sec. 6015(f), I.R.C. Alternatively, P contends
that she is entitled to proportionate relief, pursuant to
sec. 6015(b)(2), I.R.C., for a portion of the omitted
income. P contends that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to
review R's determination that P is not entitled to equitable
relief pursuant to sec. 6015(f), I.R.C. R contends that P
is not entitled to innocent spouse relief pursuant to either
sec. 6015(b)(1), I.R.C., or sec. 6015(f), I.R.C., and
contends that we do not have jurisdiction to review R's
denial of relief pursuant to sec. 6015(f), I.R.C.
Held: P had reason to know of the understatement
on P's and H's joint return, and, therefore, P is not
entitled to innocent spouse relief, pursuant to sec.
6015(b)(1), I.R.C.
Held, further, P's motion to reopen the record to
introduce evidence as to P's ability to qualify for
proportionate innocent spouse relief pursuant to sec.
6015(b)(2), I.R.C., is denied.
Held, further, On the basis of the evidence in the
record, P is not entitled to proportionate innocent
spouse relief pursuant to sec. 6015(b)(2), I.R.C.
Held, further, The Tax Court has jurisdiction to
review for abuse of discretion R's decision to deny P's
request for equitable relief pursuant to sec. 6015(f),
I.R.C.
Held, further, R's denial of P's request for
equitable relief was not an abuse of discretion.
Robert H. Culton II, for petitioners.
Michael D. Zima, for respondent.
OPINION
WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioners' Federal income tax for the taxable year 1992 in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011