- 2 -
affirmative defense results in waiver of the
defense. P contends that collateral estoppel
was placed in controversy with R’s implied
consent.
Held: The requirement of Rule 39 of this
Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to plead
an affirmative defense is satisfied in this case
by the implied consent principles of Rule 41 of
this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and
it is
Held further: Respondent is not
collaterally estopped from denying that P did
not know or had no reason to know of the
understatement, and it is
Held further: P had reason to know of
the understatement and it would not be
inequitable to hold that P is not entitled to
relief from joint liabilities under sec.
6015, I.R.C.
Robert J. Percy, for petitioner.
Robert E. Marum and Michael J. Proto, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Petitioner seeks relief from joint and
several income tax liability under section 6015.1 The income tax
liability derives from income tax deficiencies that were assessed
in accordance with this Court’s holding in Pierce v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-411 (Pierce I) as follows:
1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011