David C. Jonson and Estate of Barbara J. Jonson, Deceased - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
               premised solely on ignorance of law.  * * *  In such a                 
               scenario, regardless of whether the spouse possesses                   
               knowledge of the tax consequences of the item at issue,                
               she is considered as a matter of law to have reason to                 
               know of the * * * understatement * * *.                                
          Therefore, applying the approach of Price v. Commissioner, supra,           
          we find that Barbara had reason to know of the understatements.             
                    3.  Section 6015(b)(1)(D)                                         
                    a.  Introduction                                                  
               Because the requirements of section 6015(b)(1) are stated in           
          the conjunctive, Barbara’s failure to satisfy the lack of                   
          knowledge requirement of section 6015(b)(1)(C) is a sufficient              
          condition for us to find that she does not qualify for relief               
          under section 6015(b).  Nevertheless, since, in light of the                
          facts and circumstances of this case, we believe that it would              
          not be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiencies, we              
          discuss the application of section 6015(b)(1)(D).                           
                    b.  Discussion                                                    
               The requirement, in section 6015(b)(1)(D), that it be                  
          inequitable to hold the requesting spouse liable for an                     
          understatement on a joint return, is virtually identical to the             
          same requirement of former section 6013(e)(1)(C).  Therefore, as            
          in the case of the no-knowledge-of-the-understatement requirement           
          of section 6015(b)(1)(C), cases interpreting former section                 
          6013(e) remain instructive as to our analysis.  See Butler v.               
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 283.                                              

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011