- 5 -
actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the omitted income.
E.g., Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 115 (2002); Cheshire
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002); see also Charlton v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333
(2000); sec. 1.6015-3(c), (d)(3), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner,
who prepared and filed the joint return, omitted Mr. Tice’s
income relating to TDI. She knew Mr. Tice’s compensation rate
during the period he worked for TDI. Thus, petitioner had actual
knowledge of 50 percent of the item of income giving rise to the
deficiency. See sec. 1.6015-3(c)(4), Example (4)(ii), Income Tax
Regs. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6015(b) and (c),
petitioner is not relieved of liability for the tax deficiency
attributable to 50 percent of the omitted income.
Pursuant to section 6015(f), respondent is granted
discretion to award relief from joint and several liability where
such relief is otherwise unavailable pursuant to section 6015(b)
or (c) if the facts and circumstances indicate that it would be
inequitable to hold the spouse seeking relief liable for the
deficiency. We conclude that it would not be inequitable to hold
petitioner liable for the remaining portion of the deficiency
(i.e., the portion attributable to 50 percent of the omitted
income). She knew of 50 percent of the omitted income and failed
to establish economic hardship or that Mr. Tice had the legal
obligation to pay the additional tax liability. See Rev. Proc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011