- 5 - section 6621(c) (formerly section 6621(d)), but she was not liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) or (2). In early 1998, respondent’s Appeals Office began consideration of Judith’s claim for innocent spouse relief. A letter to Judith dated July 8, 1998, communicated, in part, the following: This letter is to inform you that all the facts and circumstances that serve as the basis for your claim for IRC 6013(e) “Innocent Spouse” relief were carefully considered. In addition, this office served notice of the claim on Thomas Corson, and requested that he furnish any information relevant to a determination as to whether or not such relief would be appropriate. In response, Mr. Corson has furnished information that must be given due consideration in this matter. The Appeals officer then concluded: “It would be my recommendation that the requirements of the law are not met and that Innocent Spouse relief could not be approved.” On July 22, 1998, the Restructuring Act was enacted. The statute, among other things, revised and expanded the relief available to spouses filing joint returns, and Judith’s attorney informed the Appeals officer that Judith elected to have the newly promulgated section 6015(c) applied for purposes of resolving her still-pending claim for relief. Then, in November of 1998, Thomas and respondent entered into a stipulation settling all issues with respect to Thomas. Like the earlier settlement with Judith, this stipulation reflected that an income tax deficiency of $21,711 was due fromPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011