- 38 -
case even when only one of the spouses earned the wages or income
shown on the return. Congress believed that relief from joint
liability was difficult to obtain under the law that preceded the
RRA 1998; i.e., former section 6013(e). Congress recognized that
joint liability may be unjust in certain circumstances. Cheshire
v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 331 (2002), affg. 115 T.C. 183
(2000).
Through section 6015, Congress authorized relief from joint
liability in three distinct cases. Id. First, section 6015(b)
relieves an individual of joint liability when he or she meets
the five requirements set forth in section 6015(b)(1). Relief
under section 6015(b)(1), which is similar to the relief
available under former section 6013(e) and to which the conferees
referred as modified (or sometimes expanded) “innocent spouse
relief”,3 H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 251, 254 (1998), 1998-3 C.B.
3 The congressional committee members used the shorthand
“innocent spouse” to refer to an individual who qualified for
relief from joint liability under former sec. 6013(e) and, in the
case of the conferees and the House committee members, under its
successor, sec. 6015(b). E.g., H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 249,
251 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 1003, 1005; S. Rept. 105-174, at 55-56
(1998), 1998-3 C.B. 591-592; H. Rept. 105-364 (Part I) at 61-62
(1997), 1998-3 C.B. 433-434. Although former sec. 6013(e) did
not actually use that term, the courts and at least one previous
legislative committee did. The term “innocent spouse” was
apparently spawned in Spanos v. United States, 212 F. Supp. 861
(D. Md. 1963), affd. in part, revd. in part, and remanded 323
F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1963). There, the court described a taxpayer
who had filed a joint return with her husband as an “innocent
spouse” after noting that the taxpayer at hand “had no income of
her own and * * * was innocent of her husband’s fraudulent
(continued...)
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011