- 22 -
471 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) (Supreme Court looks to other statutes in
defining “intelligence sources” and “confidential source[s]”.) For
instance, the Code defines “item” in other contexts, as follows:
Section 6231(a)(3) defines “partnership item” as “any item required
to be taken into account for the partnership’s taxable year under
any provision of subtitle A”; section 6231(a)(5) defines “affected
item” as “any item to the extent such item is affected by a
partnership item”; and section 6245 defines a “subchapter S item”
as “any item of an S corporation to the extent regulations
prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes of * * *
[subtitle F of the Code (Procedure and Administration)], such item
is more appropriately determined at the corporate level than at the
shareholder level.” In these circumstances, “item” is defined
without reference to its tax consequences. Moreover, it is clear
under section 61 that an “item” is gross income from a particular
source, including pensions (the type of omitted income involved in
this case).
Generally, ignorance of the tax law is not a defense to a
deficiency. As we have previously stated:
We reject [the taxpayer’s] assertion that she did not
have “reason to know” * * * because of her insufficient
legal acumen. As a practical matter, this argument is
tantamount to a claim that ignorance of the law is an
element of the innocent spouse defense, and, as such, is
incorrect. * * * A taxpayer is presumed to have knowledge
of the tax consequences of a transaction, but is not
presumed to have knowledge of the transaction itself.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011