- 18 -
We have considered and compared Charlton v. Commissioner,
supra, and Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra, to decide whether
petitioner is entitled to innocent spouse relief. We hold that
respondent has not shown that petitioner had actual knowledge of
the amount of the item giving rise to a deficiency.4
Respondent also determined additions to tax for negligence
under section 6653(a)(1)(A) and (B) and for delinquency under
section 6651(a)(1). Because of our holding with respect to
section 6015(c) relief, petitioner’s income tax deficiency, if
any, for either tax year would be de minimis.5 In particular,
respondent agreed to section 6015(c) relief for all of the
adjustment items other than the one we have decided in
petitioner’s favor. In that regard, respondent relied on
petitioner’s husband’s transactions/adjustments to assert that
petitioner was liable as a joint return filer for the negligence
addition to tax. With all of those adjustments either conceded
by respondent or decided in petitioner’s favor, the predicate for
the negligence addition no longer exists. Accordingly, we hold
4 It is unnecessary to consider petitioner’s arguments for
relief under other provisions of sec. 6015 because we have
decided she is not liable for the portion of any deficiency
attributable to the “Primera” transaction. In that regard, in
this proceeding, petitioner sought relief solely from that
transaction.
5 It appears that the remaining adjustments are more
mathematical in nature and dependant upon the adjustments that
have been conceded or determined.
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