- 10 -
but which remained unpaid as of such date. See RRA 1998
sec. 3201(g)(1), 112 Stat. 740. Following passage of
section 6015, petitioners could no longer seek relief from
joint and several liability for Mrs. Vetrano with respect
to their joint return for 1993 under former section
6013(e). See King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118, 121
(2000); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000);
cf. Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582 (2000).
As mentioned above, Mrs. Vetrano elected relief under
section 6015 in petitioners' posttrial brief. Petitioners'
entire argument regarding Mrs. Vetrano's eligibility for
relief under section 6015 is as follows:
Should this Court determine that Mr. Vetrano
received the income from BMAP in 1993 and that
Mrs. Vetrano is not entitled to the protection
afforded to her under 26 U.S.C. � 6013(e),
Mrs. Vetrano hereby elects relief from the joint
liability on the 1993 return under 26 U.S.C. �
6015. A copy of that provision is attached as
Exhibit "A". Pursuant to � 6015(c)(3)(A)(i)(I),
Mrs. Vetrano is "legally separated from"
Mr. Vetrano. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy
of the divorce complaint which was filed against
her husband in the Camden County Superior Court
on August 7, 1998. [Emphasis supplied.]
Petitioners did not seek to formally amend their petition
to include relief under section 6015 as an issue in this
case, but the parties and the Court have treated it as
having been placed at issue. In these circumstances, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011