Michael G. Culver and Christine M. Culver - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          election will not apply to the extent any deficiency is                     
          attributable to such item”).                                                
               As we have held, the relevant statutory language of section            
          6015(c)(3)(C) (namely, “If the Secretary demonstrates * * *                 
          actual knowledge”) constitutes an intended shift of the burden of           
          proof from the electing spouse to respondent with regard to                 
          whether the spouse had actual knowledge of the item in question.            
          We also hold that the quantity or level of respondent’s burden is           
          a “preponderance” of the evidence, the traditional quantity or              
          level of proof required under Rule 142(a) and the case law                  
          thereunder.  This is the same standard to which we and other                
          courts have, for many years, held taxpayers on questions of                 
          general tax liability, and we believe that this is the standard             
          that Congress intended be placed on respondent under section                
          6015(c) with regard to the actual knowledge element.  See Rule              
          142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); American              
          Pipe & Steel Corp. v. Commissioner, 243 F.2d 125, 126-127 (9th              
          Cir. 1957) (“* * * [the taxpayer], having invoked the                       
          jurisdiction of the Tax Court, entered the hearing burdened with            
          the duty of establishing by at least a preponderance of the                 
          evidence that the determination made by the Commissioner was                
          erroneous”), affg. 25 T.C. 351 (1955); Estate of Simplot v.                 
          Commissioner, 112 T.C. 130, 149-150 (1999).                                 
               Accordingly, in this case, Michael will qualify for relief             
          from joint and several liability under section 6015(c) with                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011