- 13 -
to hold her responsible for the understatement based on her
response to questions about vacations and jewelry and separate
accounts. She relies on the absence of the factors listed in the
statute as disqualifications, such as fraudulent intent or
transfers of property to avoid tax. Otherwise, she has not cited
any evidence from which we could conclude that respondent abused
his discretion in denying relief under section 6015(f). See
Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000).
Because of the gaps in the record, we need not discuss the
separate elements of each type of relief provided by section
6015. The record is insufficient for us to conclude that
petitioner is entitled to relief. At the time of trial, the
original returns that were sent to the Internal Revenue Service
were not available. Petitioner’s counsel stated at trial that
“we’ve got unsigned copies”, but the copies were not produced.
During the administrative consideration of petitioner’s claim for
relief under section 6015, petitioner was invited to present
additional information, but no further information was provided
by petitioner.
The absence of corroborative testimony or documentation in
this case is troublesome. Petitioner’s counsel claimed to have
served a subpoena duces tecum for trial on H. Smith and only
belatedly stated to the Court that the subpoena had been
disregarded. Counsel cited H. Smith’s failure to appear as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011