- 10 -
then the other individual shall be relieved of
liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and
other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent such
liability is attributable to such understatement.
These requirements are expressed in the conjunctive, and a
requesting spouse must satisfy all the requirements of section
6015(b)(1). Subparagraph (C) requires that the requesting spouse
“did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was * * *
[an] understatement” of tax. Sec. 6015(b)(1)(C).9 Mrs. Haggart
seeks relief from the self-employment taxes imposed as a result
of Mr. Haggart’s business because, according to the Form 12507,
Innocent Spouse Statement, she submitted to respondent, she
“maintained separate employment” and “had no role in the
operation or control” of Mr. Haggart’s “self-employment and
business.”10 But, section 6015(b)(1)(C) requires an analysis of
9 As part of the RRA, supra, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734,
Congress repealed sec. 6013(e) and enacted sec. 6015(b). The
language of sec. 6015(b)(1)(C) is similar to the language in
former sec. 6013(e)(1)(C). Both provisions require that the
requesting spouse “did not know, and had no reason to know” that
there was an understatement of tax. H. Conf. Rept. 105-599,
supra at 249, 1998-3 C.B. at 1003. Accordingly, the case law
interpreting the language under sec. 6013(e) will be applied in
interpreting the same language under sec. 6015(b). Butler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000).
10 It is important to note that Mrs. Haggart’s position as to
whether she understood Mr. Haggart to be self-employed or an
employee of Roman is inconsistent. On Form 12507, Innocent
Spouse Statement, and the petition filed with this Court, she
indicated that Mr. Haggart was self-employed. At trial, however,
she testified that she understood Mr. Haggart was an employee of
Roman because he got “a paycheck every two weeks * * *. He just
went from one job, and I always thought he was an employee.” In
any event, Mrs. Haggart’s belief as to Mr. Haggart’s employment
classification has no bearing on our analysis of sec. 6015(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011