-8- resulting self-employment tax deduction is allocable both to him and Hawthorne. We disagree. The self-employment tax deduction resulting from the self-employment tax due to Hawthorne’s self- employment income from Medi-Task is allocable to Hawthorne under the separate return rule for reasons discussed in paragraph A, above. C. Whether Respondent’s Determination That Hawthorne Is Entitled to Relief Under Section 6015(f) Was an Abuse of Discretion After we issued our opinion in these cases at Charlton v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333 (2000), respondent determined that Hawthorne was entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f) for the deficiency in income tax attributable to the denied deductions for the rental cabins and the deficiency in self- employment tax attributable to improper netting due to the fact that Charlton netted Medi-Task income and expenses with rental cabin expenses. Charlton disagrees with respondent’s determination. We apply an abuse of discretion standard to review the Commissioner’s determinations under section 6015(f). See Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 199 (2000); Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 332 (2000); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 291-293 (2000). Charlton contends: (1) The improper characterization of costs for the rental cabins and self-employment tax netting errors are partially attributable to Hawthorne; (2) Hawthorne knew or had reason to know of thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011