- 44 -
e. Nonrequesting Spouse’s Legal Obligation
Petitioner does not allege that Mr. Capehart had a legal
obligation under a divorce decree or an agreement to pay the
liabilities in question. In fact, petitioner and Mr. Capehart
were married until Mr. Capehart’s death. Consequently, we
conclude that this positive factor does not apply.
f. Liabilities Solely Attributable to Nonrequesting
Spouse
We concluded earlier in this opinion that, because
petitioner and Mr. Capehart were joint investors and petitioner
participated in the Hoyt partnership investments, the erroneous
items giving rise to the deficiency are items of both petitioner
and Mr. Capehart. We also concluded that, for purposes of
section 6015(c) and (d), petitioner has failed to prove that more
of the erroneous items giving rise to the deficiencies would be
allocable to Mr. Capehart if they had filed separate returns for
each year at issue. Because petitioner has failed to prove that
the erroneous items giving rise to the deficiency are
attributable solely to Mr. Capehart, we conclude that this
positive factor does not apply.
2. Negative Factors
a. Attributable to the Requesting Spouse
Respondent determined that one-half of the erroneous items
giving rise to the deficiencies were allocable to petitioner for
purposes of section 6015(c) relief. We agree with that
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011