- 19 -
The question here is whether petitioner established by clear
and convincing evidence that she did not own any part of the real
estate activity giving rise to the disallowed deductions and
adjustments relating to Schedules D of petitioner's joint returns
for the 2 years at issue.
The record does not support petitioner's contentions. As
noted earlier, regardless of Mr. Gurr's threats to her, over the
years, petitioner acquired real estate individually and in co-
ownership with Mr. Gurr and participated in various legal matters
pertaining to the real estate activity, including assisting Mr.
Gurr in his personal bankruptcy in accepting title to certain of
his real estate to escape the reach of his creditors. The
divorce court essentially awarded one-half of the real estate to
each and specifically provided that the net operating loss
carryover at issue in this case constituted an "asset" of Mr. and
Mrs. Gurr, to be divided equally for Federal income tax purposes.
Moreover, the Schedule C for the real estate activity for each
year at issue reported net losses which were not disallowed by
respondent. By filing joint income tax returns for these years,
petitioner realized a 50-percent tax benefit from these losses.
She is not entitled to relief for the 50-percent portion of the
tax understatements from the Schedule D adjustments not conceded
by respondent. On this record, petitioner has not established
that she is entitled to relief under section 6015(c) for any
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