- 14 -
Because these requisites are stated in the conjunctive, it is
necessary that the taxpayer claiming relief establish that all
requisites of section 6015(b)(1)(A) through (E) have been met.
Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-332; Kalinowski v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-21.
Respondent agrees that petitioner satisfies the requirements
of section 6015(b)(1)(A), (B), and (E) for both years at issue.
Respondent further agrees that, for 1992, petitioner satisfies
the requirements of section 6015(b)(1)(C) because petitioner did
not know and had no reason to know of the understatement, since
petitioner did not sign the 1992 return and did not know the
contents of that return.
For 1993, respondent contends that petitioner knew or had
reason to know of the understatement of tax and, therefore, fails
to satisfy section 6015(b)(1)(C). Respondent also contends that,
as to both 1992 and 1993, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it would not be inequitable to hold petitioner
liable for the understatement under section 6015(b)(1)(D).
With respect to the 1993 return, the Court is satisfied from
the record that petitioner had reason to know of the
understatement. Both petitioner and her daughter were more than
just skeptical about the substantial carryover loss. They
questioned the past credibility of Mr. Gurr, and, moreover,
neither petitioner nor her daughter was satisfied with the
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