- 61 -
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed
to carry her burden of establishing that the knowledge or reason
to know positive factor set forth in section 4.03(1)(d) of Revenue
Procedure 2000-15 is present in this case.
With respect to the legal obligation positive factor set
forth in section 4.03(1)(e) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, peti-
tioner and Mr. Monsour were married at all relevant times. On the
record before us, we find that the legal obligation factor is a
neutral factor in this case.
With respect to the attribution positive factor set forth in
section 4.03(1)(f) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, petitioner
contends that that positive factor is present in this case. In
order for that factor to be present, petitioner must establish
that the liability for each of the taxable years at issue for
which she seeks relief is solely attributable to Mr. Monsour. We
have found that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of
establishing under section 6015(b)(1)(B) that there is an under-
50(...continued)
Court’s view as to whether the approach with respect to knowledge
or reason to know of erroneous deductions in Bokum v. Commis-
sioner, 94 T.C. 126, 150-151 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th
Cir. 1993), or in Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959, 965-966
(9th Cir. 1989), revg. an Oral Opinion of this Court, is the
correct approach. In the instant case, petitioner has failed to
establish that the knowledge or reason to know positive factor is
present in this case under either the approach in Bokum or the
approach in Price with respect to each of the erroneous deduc-
tions in question that we assume arguendo gave rise to a portion
or all of an understatement for one or more of the taxable years
1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011