- 14 -
not been accounted for as reported. We thus held in Charlton
that “respondent has not shown that Charlton had actual knowledge
of the item causing the deficiency, and that Charlton qualifies
for relief under section 6015(c).” Id.
A few months later, this Court again had the opportunity to
consider the section 6015(c) relief provisions. In Cheshire v.
Commissioner, supra, also an omitted income case, petitioner had
actual knowledge of the fact of the omitted income, as well as
the amount of income, but submitted that she was entitled to
relief because she was unaware of the applicable tax laws.
Specifically, petitioner “was aware of the amount, the source,
and the date of receipt of the retirement distribution and
interest” but did not know the tax consequences of the income.
Id. (slip op. at 19). In that case we held that “knowledge” for
purposes of section 6015(c) relief disqualification does not
require actual knowledge on the part of the electing spouse as to
whether the entry on the return is or is not correct. See id.
Instead, the electing spouse must have “actual knowledge of the
disputed item of income * * * as well as the amount thereof, that
gave rise to the deficiency”. Id. (slip op. at 23). Thus, in
Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra, we concluded that ignorance of
the applicable tax law is no excuse and that respondent had met
his burden of proving knowledge of the omitted income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011