- 43 -
listed as a proprietor, and we decline to allocate any portion of
this item to her simply because her name was listed as such on
the tax returns. See, e.g., Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126,
140-141 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993); Buchine v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-36, affd. 20 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.
1994). Accordingly, this item is allocable to Mr. Rowe.
Consequently, petitioner will be entitled to complete relief from
joint liability under section 6015(c) unless respondent can show
that petitioner had actual knowledge of this item.
2. Actual Knowledge
In the notice of deficiency for the years 1987, 1988, and
1989, respondent determined that petitioners were not entitled to
the claimed Schedule F losses because the farming activity was
not engaged in for profit. In the notice of deficiency for 1990,
respondent determined that petitioners were not entitled to the
claimed Schedule F loss because it had not been established that
the farming activity was engaged in as a trade or business within
the meaning of section 162 or as a means of holding property for
the production of income within the meaning of section 212.
Respondent’s primary position under section 6015(c)(3)(C) is that
petitioner had actual knowledge that Mr. Rowe was not engaged in
the farming activity for profit.23 In order to prove actual
23As an alternative ground for disallowing the Schedule F
losses, respondent determined that petitioners failed to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011