Pamela Renee Wiggins - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          previously on the joint return against the tax shown on the                 
          return and claimed a refund of $141, which she received in due              
          course.                                                                     
               In a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, signed             
          by petitioner and dated November 5, 1998, petitioner requested              
          section 6015 relief.  The Form 8857 used by petitioner does not             
          reflect the repeal of section 6013(e) and enactment of section              
          6015.  Nevertheless, it appears that respondent considered her              
          claim in accordance with the provisions of section 6015.  In this           
          regard, on February 21, 2001, in a notice of final determination,           
          respondent advised petitioner that she was not entitled to relief           
          under subsections (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015.                         
          Discussion                                                                  
               We are somewhat perplexed by the series of events just                 
          described.  Of particular concern is the fact that the untimely             
          separate return was processed after respondent had previously               
          treated the joint return as petitioner’s and issued a notice of             
          deficiency to her based upon the information and items reported             
          on the joint return.                                                        
               In her administrative request for relief petitioner                    
          apparently claimed that she neither authorized nor consented to             
          the joint return.  Petitioner’s claim on this point was addressed           
          in a letter dated April 29, 2002, in which respondent’s Appeals             
          officer stated:                                                             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011