John A. Rowe and Donna L. Rowe - Page 62




                                       - 62 -                                         
               In our opinion, it is an abuse of discretion to deny                   
               relief under section 6015(f) in an addition to tax or                  
               penalty situation when on an individual basis the                      
               putative innocent spouse meets the statutory standard                  
               generally applied to all taxpayers that shows the                      
               addition to tax or penalty is inapplicable.  [Id. at                   
               199.]                                                                  
               A.   Addition to Tax for Failure To File Timely                        
               Respondent determined that petitioners were liable for the             
          addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1989.  Section           
          6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a                 
          required return on the date prescribed.  After factoring in the             
          parties’ concessions and our decisions in petitioner’s favor,               
          petitioner does not have an unpaid tax liability for 1989.  In              
          light of respondent’s concession, petitioner is not liable for              
          the addition to tax for 1989.                                               
               B.   Substantial Understatement Penalty                                
               For the taxable years 1987 and 1988, respondent determined             
          that petitioners were liable for the substantial understatement             
          penalty pursuant to section 6661.  However, after taking into               
          account respondent’s concessions and the issues decided in                  
          petitioner’s favor, petitioner’s sole remaining liability for               
          those years involves an $85 theft loss adjustment in 1987 which             
          the parties agree is allocable one-half to petitioner.37  With              
          the minimal theft loss adjustment remaining as the only issue for           
          petitioner for 1987, the predicate for the substantial                      


               37See appendix.                                                        





Page:  Previous  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011