Timothy R. Becherer - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several             
          income tax liability for 1996 pursuant to section 6015(b), (c),             
          or (f).                                                                     
          Background                                                                  
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  At the time he filed his            
          petition, petitioner resided in Los Angeles, California.2                   
               Petitioner and Lesley Louise Becherer (Ms. Becherer) married           
          on February 23, 1994, and divorced on September 26, 1997.                   
               Petitioner and Ms. Becherer filed a joint income tax return            
          for 1996.  In the notice of deficiency for 1996, respondent                 
          determined that petitioner and Ms. Becherer had five items of               
          unreported income.  The five items consisted of income from four            
          employers and a distribution from the City of Clearwater.  The              
          distribution from the City of Clearwater was attributable to                
          petitioner.  The income received from one employer, Cenex                   
          Services, was attributable to petitioner.  The income received              
          from the remaining three employers,  TTC Illinois, Trader                   
          Publications, and Pennysaver, was attributable to Ms. Becherer.             
          Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,833 in petitioner’s and            
          Ms. Becherer’s 1996 Federal income tax liability.  Apart from the           


               2  At trial, respondent orally moved that intervenor be                
          dismissed for lack of prosecution.  That motion is denied by the            
          Court.                                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011