- 48 -
3. Other Relevant Factors
Petitioner argues that in determining whether it is
inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the deficiency, we must
consider the complexity of the transactions and Mr. Hoyt’s
intentional deception of petitioner about the underlying
circumstances that gave rise to the deficiencies. Although we
may consider other factors in addition to those set forth in Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, supra, we have previously rejected taxpayers’
arguments and denied section 6015(f) relief in cases where
neither spouse had actual knowledge of the facts that made the
Hoyt partnership losses unallowable as deductions on their joint
returns. Bartak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-83; Ellison v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-57; Doyel v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-35. The purpose of section 6015 is to protect one
spouse from the overreaching or dishonesty of the other spouse.
Bartak v. Commissioner, supra (citing Purcell v. Commissioner,
826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C. 228 (1986)). Where
the deficiency is attributable to the mistaken belief of both the
requesting spouse and the other spouse as to the legitimacy of
tax shelter deductions, we have held that it is not inequitable
to hold both spouses jointly and severally liable. Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 146 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th
Cir. 1993); McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 735 (1972);
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