- 7 -
replaced it.3 The requirement of section 6015(b)(1)(C) is
similar to the requirement of former section 6013(e)(1)(C), in
that both provisions require a spouse who is seeking relief to
establish that “in signing the return, he or she did not know,
and had no reason to know” of the understatement. Because of the
similarities, analysis in opinions concerning section
6013(e)(1)(C) is instructive for our analysis of section
6015(b)(1)(C). See Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106 (2002);
Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000).
Venue for appeal of our decision by petitioner would
normally be to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In
omission of income cases under former section 6013(e)(1), this
Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have held
that a relief seeking spouse knows of an understatement of tax if
he knows of the transaction that gave rise to the understatement.
See Guth v. Commissioner, 897 F.2d 441, 444 (9th Cir. 1990),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-522; Braden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-69. Accordingly, in such circumstances, innocent spouse
relief is denied.
The record we consider supports our holding that petitioner
3Sec. 6015 was added by the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec.
3201(a), 112 Stat. 685, 734. Sec. 6015 is effective with respect
to any tax liability arising after July 22, 1998, and any tax
liability arising on or before July 22, 1998, that is unpaid on
that date.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011