- 23 -
Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 150 (quoting Stevens v.
Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1508 n.8 (11th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1988-63 (citations omitted)); Estate of Hall v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-93, affd. 103 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1996). Were we to
accept the knowledge standard petitioner advocates (i.e., the
putative innocent spouse is entitled to relief if she/he
misunderstood or lacked knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code (the
Code)), then potentially any spouse who is not a certified public
accountant or tax attorney would be allowed to escape paying income
tax. We do not believe Congress intended such a result.
To conclude, petitioner had actual knowledge of the disputed
item of income (the retirement distribution proceeds), as well as
the amount thereof, that gave rise to the deficiency at the time
she signed the joint 1992 return. The fact that petitioner did not
know that the amount of the retirement distribution was misstated
on the return is of no import. Consequently, the benefits of
section 6015(c) are unavailable to her.
C. Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Section 6015(f) confers discretion on the Secretary (and the
Secretary has delegated that discretion to respondent) to grant
innocent spouse relief to an individual (where relief is not
available under section 6015(b) or (c)) if taking into account all
the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the
individual liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency (or any portion
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011