- 20 -
evidence to show that she had not been a member of the same
household as Mr. Vetrano during the 12-month period ending
on the date of her election. Therefore, we agree with
respondent that, as of the date on which Mrs. Vetrano filed
her election under section 6015(c): "She was not eligible
to make the election." It is unnecessary for us to
consider the other points raised in respondent's reply
brief regarding Mrs. Vetrano's election under section
6015(c).
As noted above, in response to the Court's order
giving the parties 30 days in which to request further
trial, respondent alleges that petitioners were divorced
after the date on which petitioners filed their posttrial
brief, and, as of that later date, Mrs. Vetrano met the
requirement of section 6015(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) and was
eligible to elect under 6015(c). Respondent argues that
the Court should permit the parties to present evidence
concerning the date of Mrs. Vetrano's divorce because:
"Even if the initial claim could not be decided on the
basis that it was premature, this new evidence would cure
that problem."
We agree with respondent that if Mrs. Vetrano became
eligible to elect relief under section 6015(c) after the
date of the first election, then she could make a second
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011