- 17 -
In sum, consideration of the foregoing factors leads us to
believe that petitioner should have known of the understatement
on petitioners' 1992 tax return. At a minimum, petitioner's
knowledge of the settlement and the tax consequences of S
corporations placed on her the duty to inquire about the amount
of the settlement and the flowthrough of petitioner's husband's
share of BGE's income as it might affect petitioners' 1992 tax
return. Consequently, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to
innocent spouse relief pursuant to section 6015(b)(1).
Petitioner's Motion To Reopen the Record To Introduce Evidence of
Her Ability To Qualify for Proportionate Relief Pursuant to
Section 6015(b)(2)
Petitioner requests that we reopen the record in the instant
case to submit evidence as to petitioner's qualification for
relief pursuant to new section 6015(b)(2). Reopening the record
for the submission of additional evidence lies within the
discretion of the Court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331 (1971). A court will not grant
a motion to reopen the record unless, among other requirements,
the evidence relied on is not merely cumulative or impeaching,
the evidence is material to the issues involved, and the evidence
probably would change the outcome of the case. See Coleman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-248 (citing Edgar v. Finley, 312
F.2d 533 (8th Cir. 1963)). Petitioner's motion to reopen the
record does not describe in any way the evidence she would offer.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011