- 28 -
the deficiency provided a tax benefit on the joint return to the
other spouse, the item shall be allocated to the other spouse in
computing his or her proportionate share of the deficiency. Sec.
6015(d)(3)(B). The electing spouse bears the burden of proof
with respect to establishing the portion of any deficiency that
is allocable to her. Sec. 6015(c)(2).
Because respondent determined that petitioner and Mr.
Capehart were joint investors in SGE, respondent attributed one-
half of the partnership items giving rise to the deficiency to
each of petitioner and Mr. Capehart. See sec. 6015(d)(1),
(3)(A). In order for petitioner to obtain any additional relief
under section 6015(c), she must prove that none of the items
would have been allocated to her if she and Mr. Capehart had
filed separate returns. Sec. 6015(c)(2); Mora v. Commissioner,
supra at 290.
As discussed earlier in this opinion, petitioner has failed
to prove that the erroneous items giving rise to the
understatement of tax are items solely of Mr. Capehart.
Petitioner has also failed to prove that she is entitled to a
more favorable allocation than that conceded by respondent. See
sec. 6015(d)(3)(B). Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s
determination to deny petitioner any additional relief from joint
and several liability under section 6015(c).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011