- 17 -
the returns. No adjustments were made by respondent to Schedules
C of the returns for 1992 and 1993. For both years, net losses
were claimed on the Schedules C, which respondent allowed. Thus,
petitioner received a tax benefit from these losses. On this
premise, it appears to the Court that there is a basic
inconsistency in petitioner's claim for relief. On the one hand,
petitioner claims she should be relieved of joint liability on
the Schedule D adjustments because she was not a participant and
not involved in the real estate activity; yet, petitioner does
not disavow or disclaim the tax benefits she realized from the
Schedule C losses claimed and allowed on the 1992 and 1993
returns, all in connection with the same real estate activity.
The case for inequity has not been established. Petitioner has
not satisfied the requisites of section 6015(b)(1)(D) and,
accordingly, is not entitled to relief from joint liability under
section 6015(b) for both years at issue.
The Court next addresses petitioner's claim for relief under
section 6015(c). As noted earlier, respondent conceded
petitioner's entitlement to relief under section 6015(c) to the
extent of 50 percent of the understatements relating to most of
the adjustments for the 2 years in question, all of which are
related to the real estate activity. Petitioner claims relief
for that portion of the understatements not conceded by
respondent.
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