- 29 -
Cong. Rec. S4473-4474 and S4493 (daily ed. May 7, 1998),
respectively. Such concerns square with the restrictions added
by the eligibility requirements and are consistent with treating
a widow or widower as no longer married. Such concerns are not
ignored by treating a spouse such as Barbara, who, the record
indicates, was happily married to her husband at the time she
died, as failing to meet the eligibility requirements.
Petitioners’ claim to section 6015(c) relief turns the statute on
its head, in that David became a widower; Barbara was never
widowed. We are not convinced by the relevant legislative
history that Congress’s purpose in allowing separate liability
treatment to eligible spouses would be furthered by allowing
David to elect such treatment on behalf of Barbara.9
c. Conclusion
At the time of her death, Barbara did not satisfy the
eligibility requirements.
9 In fact, separate liability treatment would be
particularly inappropriate in this case. Barbara left her entire
estate to David. Although David disclaimed his inheritance in
favor of the children, the disclaimer provided for the investment
of the assets (in exchange for stock issued to the children) in
Jonson Management Co., Inc., David’s geological consulting
corporation (formed after the audit years). The conclusion is
inescapable that David, the nonrequesting spouse, stands to
benefit as much as anyone should the assets of Barbara’s estate
be immune from the collection of deficiencies for which both
David and Barbara normally would be jointly liable.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011