- 8 -
In Martin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-346, the Court
stated:
section 6015(c) relieves certain joint-filing taxpayers by
making them liable only for those items of which they had
actual knowledge, rather than being liable for all items
reportable on the joint return. In effect, this approach is
intended, to the extent permitted, to treat certain spouses
as though they had filed a separate return. This is a
departure from predecessor section 6013(e) and companion
section 6015(b) where the intended goal was to permit relief
only if the relief-seeking spouse did not know or had no
reason to know of an item.
Accordingly, taxpayers who are either no longer
married, separated (for 12 months or more), or not living
together * * * may elect treatment as though they had
separately filed. Section 6015(c)(3)(C), however, does not
permit the election of separate treatment for any item where
“the Secretary demonstrates that an individual * * * had
actual knowledge, [of the item] at the time such individual
signed the return”. * * *
In this case, the activity giving rise to the deficiency,
i.e., the cattle-raising activity, was attributable solely to
intervenor. As noted above, relief under section 6015(c)(3)(C)
is not available to petitioner if respondent demonstrates that
petitioner had actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the
deficiency.
In Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra, this Court held that,
where the spouse claiming relief under section 6015(b) or (c) had
actual knowledge of items of omitted income but did not have
knowledge “whether the entry on the return is or is not correct",
relief was not available. Id. at 195. In furtherance of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011