- 12 -
Without any elaboration on the subject matter of petitioner’s
testimony, and based on her own words rather than her counsel’s,
we are not satisfied that her conclusions are based on facts.
Petitioner testified in a similar manner that all income
other than her salary reported on the 1992 return was
attributable to her husband and that income taxes were withheld
from her earnings during 1992. The stipulated facts, however,
contradict petitioner’s recollection of income taxes being
withheld. According to the stipulation, no payments on the 1992
liabilities were made before 1998. Any withholding from
petitioner’s wages would have been reflected as of April 1993.
In the absence of either the tax return or the notice of
deficiency for 1992, we cannot tell whether the deficiency
resulted from unreported income, from petitioner’s or H. Smith’s
income, or from disallowed deductions that were apparent on the
face of the return.
Petitioner claims that she is entitled to relief under
section 6015(b), (c), or (f) for 1992 and under section 6015(f)
for 1987. She concedes that, with respect to liabilities
reported on the return but not paid, relief is available only
under section 6015(f). Petitioner relies on the above testimony
to establish that the understatement of tax for 1992 was
attributable to H. Smith and that she had no reason to know of
the deficiency. Petitioner argues that it would be inequitable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011