David R. Braden and Sharon F. Braden - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          inequitable to hold the spouse seeking relief liable for the                
          substantial understatement.                                                 
               Many taxpayers tried unsuccessfully to obtain relief under             
          section 6013(e), even after it was amended in 1984.  In order to            
          make relief from joint and several liability more accessible,               
          Congress, in 1998, repealed section 6013(e) and enacted section             
          6015.  See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act            
          of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734; H. Conf.             
          Rept. 105-599, at 249 (1998).  Section 6015 provides several                
          avenues of relief, one of which is section 6015(b)(1).  See                 
          Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 189 (2000).  Although               
          some of the provisions of section 6015 have no analog in former             
          section 6013(e), section 6015(b)(1) is similar to former section            
          6013(e)(1).  In analyzing section 6015(b)(1), we may look to                
          cases interpreting former section 6013(e)(1) for guidance.  See             
          Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.           
          276, 283 (2000).                                                            
               Petitioner seeks relief under section 6015(b)(1) from joint            
          and several liability for the deficiency determined by respondent           
          with respect to the IRA and interest distributions (collectively,           
          the distributions) received by Ms. Braden during 1995.8                     


               8Petitioner originally sought relief under former sec.                 
          6013(e).  The parties subsequently stipulated that “the innocent            
          spouse issue in this case is governed by” sec. 6015.  Petitioner            
          abandoned his argument under sec. 6015(c) at trial.                         





Page:  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