- 43 -
V. Charlton v. Commissioner
In Charlton v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333 (2000), the putative
innocent spouse knew of and had access to correct information about
his then-wife’s income-producing activity. See Charlton, 114 T.C.
at 341. Even though the putative innocent spouse in Charlton knew
that his wife had an income-producing Schedule C business, we
concluded that the Commissioner failed to show that the putative
innocent spouse had knowledge when he signed the return of any item
giving rise to a deficiency. See id. Thus, Charlton may be cited
for the proposition (contrary to respondent’s position in Cheshire,
majority op. at 18) that knowledge of the income-producing activity
does not bar relief under section 6015(c).
The majority finds that petitioner knew that Mr. Cheshire
received retirement distributions and interest on the Austin Telco
account in 1992, and that she knew the amounts of the retirement
distributions and interest. See majority op. pp. 4, 16, 23.
However, the majority’s failure to discuss Charlton will inevitably
cause confusion because, both here and in Charlton, we found that
the putative innocent spouse knew of the activity which gave rise to
the deficiency. Under the doctrine of stare decisis we generally
follow the holding of a previously decided published opinion of the
Tax Court or explain why we are not doing so. This is especially
true when our prior published opinion involves statutory
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011