Mary Catherine Pierce - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
                    (E) the other individual elects * * * the benefits                
               of this subsection not later than the date which is 2                  
               years after the date the Secretary has begun collection                
               activities with respect to the individual making the                   
               election * * *                                                         
               All of the requirements must be met, and failure to meet               
          even one of the requirements is a bar to relief.  Sec.                      
          6015(b)(1); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 313 (2002).                  
          Respondent concedes that petitioner has satisfied the                       
          requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (E) of section                  
          6015(b)(1).  Therefore, we must decide whether petitioner has met           
          the requirements of subparagraphs (C) and (D), to wit:  Whether             
          petitioner, when signing the return, knew or had reason to know             
          that there was a substantial understatement and/or whether,                 
          taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it would            
          be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the understatement.            
               Petitioner contends, in the alternative, that respondent, on           
          the basis of the holding of a prior case, is collaterally                   
          estopped from denying that she did not know or have a reason to             
          know of the understatements and/or that she is entitled to relief           
          based on the facts presented in this case.  We begin our                    
          consideration here with the question of collateral estoppel.                
          I.  Is Respondent Collaterally Estopped?                                    
               A.  In General                                                         
               Petitioner argues that respondent is collaterally estopped             
          from denying that petitioner did not know or have reason to know            






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