- 19 -
petitioner has not shown what part of the omitted income was
attributable to Mr. Grubich, she has failed to satisfy the
requirements of section 6013(e)(1)(B).” Id.
As was the case in Grubich v. Commissioner, supra,
petitioner here actively and substantially participated in the
Privilege House business which generated the unreported income.
In fact, it was petitioner, not Mrs. Ishizaki, who was involved
in making and closing the sales which actually produced revenue
for Privilege House. Petitioner even testified at one point “I
worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because she said,
‘We’re going to go broke if you don’t sell more furniture.’”
While we do not opine regarding the truth of this statement in
its entirety, it at least stands for the proposition that
petitioner played, and does not dispute that he so played, an
important role in generating Privilege House sales. Furthermore,
because there is nothing in the record that would enable us to
allocate sales between the spouses based on the relative value of
their services to the enterprise, we cannot determine the
respective amounts of income attributable to each. Accordingly,
since petitioner has failed to establish that any portion of the
understatement is attributable solely to erroneous items of Mrs.
Ishizaki, he has failed to prove that he satisfies the criteria
for relief under section 6015(b).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011