- 12 -
Morrison could receive benefits retroactively from the date of
her application.
Further, Ms. Morrison’s testimony was more consistent with
the overall record than that of petitioner, making her the more
credible witness. We are therefore persuaded by her testimony
that petitioner learned of the existence and amount of the
benefits through: (1) Ms. Morrison’s presentation of her
benefit statement to the joint return preparer; and (2)
conversations between Ms. Morrison and petitioner.
Petitioner’s knowledge of the understatement is, by itself,
fatal to his claim for partial relief under section 6015(b)(2).
Even if we were to assume that petitioner did not know or have
reason to know of a portion of the understatement, he would not,
in other respects qualify for partial relief under section
6015(b)(2). Under that section, petitioner must also establish
that he satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(D) of section 6015(b)(1), with respect to a portion of an
understatement for which he lacked knowledge or a reason to know.
See sec 1.6015-2(e)(1) Income Tax Regs. The record reflects
that, with respect to the entire understatement, petitioner met
the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B). However,
petitioner failed to meet the requirement of subsection (D) that
it would be inequitable to hold petitioner and Ms. Morrison
jointly and severally liable for the deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011