- 22 -
extent such liability is attributable to such
understatement.
The requirements of section 6015(b)(1) are stated in the
conjunctive. Therefore, if the requesting spouse fails to meet
any one of them, she does not qualify for relief. Alt v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 313 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34
(6th Cir. 2004). Except as provided by section 6015, the
requesting spouse bears the burden of proving that she satisfies
each requirement of section 6015(b)(1).10 See Rule 142(a).
Respondent does not dispute that petitioner meets the
requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (E) of section 6015(b)(1)
but contends that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements
of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 6015(b)(1).
Petitioner disagrees.
With respect to subparagraph (B) of section 6015(b)(1),
petitioner argues that the understatement of tax is attributable
entirely to Mr. Capehart because the investment in SGE was not a
joint investment and that Mr. Capehart was solely responsible for
investing in SGE. Respondent argues that the understatement of
tax is not solely attributable to the erroneous items of Mr.
Capehart because both petitioner and Mr. Capehart owned the
partnership interest in SGE, and petitioner participated in the
10Petitioner does not contend that sec. 7491 applies to this
case and has not produced evidence to show she satisfied the
requirements of sec. 7491(a).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011