- 5 -
(A) and (E). For the sake of completeness, we shall discuss the
application of 6015(b)(1)(B), (C), and (D). See Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra at 119.
A. Section 6015(b)(1)(B): Attributable to One Spouse
Section 6015(b)(1)(B) mandates that the understatement of
tax be attributable to erroneous items of the nonrequesting
spouse. Five items were omitted from the 1996 return and
petitioner concedes that two of the items, the distribution from
the City of Clearwater and the income received from Cenex
Services, are solely attributable to him. Therefore, petitioner
cannot qualify for section 6015(b) relief for the two items.
B. Section 6015(b)(1)(C): Know or Reason To Know
The requirement in section 6015(b)(1)(C), the
no-knowledge-of-the-understatement requirement, is virtually
identical to the requirement of former section 6013(e)(1)(C);
therefore, cases interpreting former section 6013(e) remain
instructive to our analysis. Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at
115; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000).
Venue for appeal of our decision would be to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In omission of income cases
under former section 6013(e)(1), this Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have held that a spouse seeking
relief knows of an understatement of tax if he or she knows or
has reason to know of the transaction that gave rise to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011