- 24 -
Mr. Ellison did not hide, or try to hide, any mail from
petitioner. Furthermore, knowledge or reason to know for
purposes of section 6015(f) is defined by Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
2000-1 C.B. 447, as knowledge or reason to know “of the item
giving rise to a deficiency.” Petitioner knew about the Hoyt
partnerships.
Petitioner claims that Mr. Hoyt’s deceit is relevant to the
determination whether petitioner is entitled to relief under
section 6015(f). Ms. Boak considered the fact that both
petitioner and Mr. Ellison were deceived by Mr. Hoyt. Even if
Mr. Hoyt’s deceit is relevant, it does not lead to the result
petitioner desires.
A purpose of section 6015 is to protect one spouse from the
overreaching or dishonesty of the other. See Purcell v.
Commissioner, 826 F.2d 470, 475 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C.
228 (1986). The understatement in tax in this case is
attributable to a mistaken belief on the part of both petitioner
and Mr. Ellison as to the legitimacy of the tax shelter
deductions. Under these circumstances, we perceive no inequity
in holding both spouses to joint and several liability. 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).
Petitioner claims that respondent disregarded petitioner’s
expenses and looked at adjusted gross income to determine
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011