- 13 -
deficiencies attributable to the understatements.6 Petitioner
bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Grossman v.
Commissioner, 182 F.3d 275, 279 (4th Cir. 1999), affg. T.C. Memo
1996-452.7
II. Actual or Constructive Knowledge
To qualify for relief under section 6015(b), petitioner must
establish that she did not know and had no reason to know that on
the joint returns there were understatements of tax attributable
to Dr. Barranco’s omitted medical practice income. See sec.
6015(b)(1)(C).
We are convinced that petitioner had no actual knowledge of
the understatements. Accordingly, we focus on the issue of
whether she had reason to know of the understatements.
6 Respondent also argues that petitioner is ineligible for
relief under sec. 6015 with respect to the 1988 tax year, because
she signed the 1988 amended return with Dr. Barranco.
Consequently, respondent contends, there is no 1988
understatement within the meaning of sec. 6015(b)(1)(B).
Petitioner disputes that she signed the 1988 amended return.
Because we decide that petitioner has failed to satisfy other
statutory requirements for relief under sec. 6015(b), it is
unnecessary to reach this issue, and we do not.
7 Effective for court proceedings arising in connection with
examinations commencing after July 22, 1998, if certain
requirements are met, sec. 7491(a) shifts the burden of proof to
the Commissioner. RRA 1998 sec. 3001(a), 112 Stat. 726.
Petitioner has neither alleged that sec. 7491(a) applies nor
established that the preconditions to its applicability have been
met. Moreover, because sec. 6015(b)(1)(C) specifically requires
the relief-seeking spouse to establish that he or she did not
have actual or constructive knowledge of the understatement, the
provisions of sec. 7491(a) are inapplicable with respect to this
issue. See sec. 7491(a)(3).
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