- 13 -
Relief-seeking taxpayers must also establish, inter alia,
that “taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold the * * * [electing taxpayer] liable for the
deficiency in tax for such taxable year attributable to such
understatement”. Sec. 6015(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). In
determining the equities, the “Relevant factors include [but are
not limited to] significant benefits received as a result of the
understatements by the spouse claiming relief, [and] any
participation in wrongdoing on the part of the ‘innocent’
spouse”.10 Friedman v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d 523, 532 (2d Cir.
1995), affg. in part and revg. in part on another ground T.C.
Memo. 1993-549; see S. Rept. 91-1537, at 3-4 (1970), 1971-1 C.B.
606, 607-608.11 “Whether the failure to report correctly tax
liability results from ‘concealment, overreaching, or any other
wrongdoing’ on the part of the ‘guilty’ spouse is also relevant.”
Hayman v. Commissioner, supra at 1262; see Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra.
10Guidance in determining “whether it would be inequitable
to hold a requesting spouse” liable can also be found in Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. See sec. 1.6015-2(d), Income Tax
Regs.
11Since sec. 6015(b)(1) is similar to former sec.
6013(e)(1), we may look to cases interpreting former sec.
6013(e)(1) for guidance when analyzing sec. 6015(b)(1). Butler
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000); Rowe v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-325.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011