- 18 -
and (f), equitable considerations in holding the putative innocent
spouse liable for unpaid tax or any deficiency are of no import.
In the instant case, neither party disputes that the principal
item giving rise to the deficiency is Mr. Cheshire’s receipt of the
retirement distribution proceeds,5 and that such item is allocable
to him under section 6015(d). Nor is there any dispute that
petitioner is entitled to make an election under section 6015(c) as
she and Mr. Cheshire were no longer married when petitioner filed
her petition in this Court. The dispute between the parties
involves whether petitioner had actual knowledge, at the time the
joint return was signed, of “any item giving rise to the deficiency
(or portion thereof)”.
Petitioner posits that because she did not know that the
taxable amount of the retirement distribution was misstated on the
1992 joint return, she is entitled to section 6015(c) relief.
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that ignorance of the tax
law is of no import–-if petitioner knew of the event or transaction
giving rise to the deficiency (which she admits she did), then
petitioner cannot obtain relief under section 6015(c).
In our opinion, the knowledge requirement of section
6015(c)(3)(C) does not require the electing spouse to possess
knowledge of the tax consequences arising from the item giving rise
5 Petitioner does not claim sec. 6015(c) relief with
respect to the omitted interest income.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011