- 9 - person who prepared petitioner’s separate return, and petitioner’s divorce attorney coordinated the filing of the joint return. Petitioner, therefore, either possessed actual knowledge that a portion of the liability reported on that joint return was not paid, or such knowledge is imputed to her. The separate return contains a number of errors that resulted in a refund to petitioner to which she was not entitled.5 The refund that petitioner received was, in effect, recaptured on the joint return by reducing the amount of withholdings attributable to Mr. Weight. Set against the factors in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, the facts and circumstances of this case indicate that it would not be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the portion of her 1996 Federal income tax liability that remains unpaid. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent. 5 In her brief, petitioner acknowledges that the separate return contains deductions to which she might not be entitled, but she points out that the elimination of those deductions would not increase her tax liability. Petitioner, however, ignores that, because she was married as of the close of 1996, she was not entitled to file as head of household. See sec. 2(b). Her proper filing status for purposes of her separate return was married filing separately. Consequently, she was not entitled to the earned income credit. See sec. 32(d).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011