- 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