- 11 -
know, and had no reason to know, of the substantial
understatement; and (4) taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the spouse seeking
relief liable for the deficiency attributable to such substantial
understatement. Of particular significance here were items (3)
and (4) above.
During the civil examination, petitioner refused to provide
requested records to respondent’s revenue agent. Although
petitioner asserted her entitlement to relief from joint
liability at some point in the administrative proceedings, she
never provided any corroborating evidence to justify her claim;
indeed, it is unclear from the record that she ever provided any
explanation why she believed she merited relief from joint
liability.3 Similarly, during trial preparation she provided no
significant support for her position that she was entitled to
innocent spouse relief.
Whether a spouse is entitled to relief from joint liability
depends upon an examination of all the facts and circumstances,
3 It is unclear whether petitioner ever asserted a claim for
relief from joint liability during the civil examination. At
trial, petitioner produced an executed Form 8379, Injured Spouse
Claim and Allocation, dated Nov. 29, 1996. Petitioner offered no
documentation, however, that the form was ever transmitted to
respondent. Respondent’s agent testified that she never received
the form. Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that petitioner
did submit the Form 8379 to respondent, the Form 8379 offered
into evidence includes no explanation as to why petitioner
believed she qualified for relief from joint liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011