- 20 -
of the electing spouse as to whether the entry on the return is or
is not correct.
We recognize that the Senate and conference reports contain
the statement that “if the IRS proves that the electing spouse had
actual knowledge that an item on a return is incorrect, the
election will not apply to the extent any deficiency is
attributable to such item.” H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 253
(1998); see S. Rept. 105-174, at 70 (1998). Arguably, this
statement conflicts with our knowledge standard for purposes of
section 6015(c)(3)(C). On the other hand, it can be read merely as
an example where relief is not warranted.
Section 6015(c)(3)(C) does not explicitly state or reasonably
imply that relief is denied only where the electing spouse has
actual knowledge that the item giving rise to the deficiency (or
any portion thereof) is incorrectly reported on the return. As the
Supreme Court has stated “courts must presume that a legislature
says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says
there”. Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254
(1992). Were we to interpret section 6015(c)(3)(C) narrowly (by
denying relief only where the electing spouse actually knows that
the item giving rise to the deficiency is incorrectly reported on
the return), we would be redrafting the statute, something we may
not do.
We now turn to the meaning of the word “item” for purposes of
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011