- 37 -
know, and had no reason to know, that there was such understatement;
(D) taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other
individual liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable
year attributable to such understatement; and
(E) the other individual elects (in such form as the
Secretary may prescribe) the benefits of this subsection not
later than the date which is 2 years after the date the
Secretary has begun collection activities with respect to
the individual making the election * * * .
These requirements are stated in the conjunctive: A taxpayer is
not entitled to relief if any one of the requirements is not
satisfied.
We first address the requirement found in section
6015(b)(1)(B); namely, the requirement that the understatement
with respect to which a taxpayer seeks relief must be
attributable to an erroneous item of the other individual filing
the joint return. If the understatement is attributable to an
erroneous item of both the taxpayer and the other individual
filing the return, the taxpayer is not entitled to relief under
section 6015(b). See, e.g., Bartak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-83; Ellison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-57; Doyel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35. For the reasons discussed
above in connection with the additions to tax for negligence, we
have concluded that both petitioner and Mr. Barnes were investors
in RCR #1. Consequently, the understatement in each year in
issue is attributable to erroneous items of both petitioner and
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011