- 13 -
determination that, if the parties had not settled the issue,
would have been made by the Court only after carefully weighing
all the evidence and assessing the credibility of several key
witnesses--or that petitioner would have prevailed on her claim
for relief from joint liability under former section 6013(e)–-an
issue that we need not reach, given respondent’s concession that
petitioner is entitled to full relief from joint liability
pursuant to section 6015(c).
b. Period After Enactment of Section 6015
Effective July 22, 1998, former section 6013(e) was repealed
and replaced, with retroactive effect, by new section 6015. See
RRA sec. 3201(a), (e)(1), 112 Stat. 740. In Corson v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 354, 359-360 (2000), we summarized the
effect of new section 6015 as follows:
Whereas section 6013(e) had offered only a single
avenue of relief, based on a spouse’s lack of knowledge or
reason to know of a substantial understatement, section 6015
authorizes three types of relief. Subsection (b) provides a
form of relief available to all joint filers and similar to,
but less restrictive than, that previously afforded by
section 6013(e). Subsection (c) permits a taxpayer who has
divorced or separated to elect to have his or her tax
liability calculated as if separate returns had been filed.
Subsection (f) confers discretion upon the Commissioner to
grant equitable relief, based on all facts and
circumstances, in cases where relief is unavailable under
subsection (b) or (c).
In August 1998 petitioner made administrative elections for
relief pursuant to new section 6015. On January 13, 1999,
respondent conceded that petitioner was entitled to relief under
section 6015(c). Respondent was entitled to take a reasonable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011