- 7 -
basis of the petitioner’s case, are as follows:
a. Petitioner’s wife ran the business in question
and the petitioner did not receive any benefit
from any funds that were taken from the
business.
b. The petitioner has no memory of signing the
tax return.
Petitioner did not and does not dispute the deficiency, addition
to tax, or penalty as set forth in the notice of deficiency.
(Nor, for that matter, does Mrs. Ishizaki.) Respondent then
answered, denying and placing in dispute petitioner’s
contentions.
After answering the petition, respondent referred the case
to its Examination Division for the purpose of investigating the
merits of petitioner’s entitlement to relief pursuant to section
6015. Revenue Agent David Guerrero conducted this examination.
He initially spoke with Ms. Encarnacion to gain background
information and then interviewed petitioner. In addition, during
the period that petitioner’s claim was under consideration,
respondent by letter provided Mrs. Ishizaki with an opportunity
to submit information regarding petitioner’s entitlement to
relief, but Mrs. Ishizaki failed to respond. Mr. Guerrero began
his evaluation with the requirements of section 6015(b) and, upon
concluding that petitioner was entitled to full relief under that
subsection, did not consider petitioner’s entitlement to relief
under section 6015(c) or 6015(f). Underlying Mr. Guerrero’s
conclusion was a judgment that the return was a joint return
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