- 7 -
administrative file included the correspondence between
petitioners and the examining officer, the record of the
examining officer’s interview with Tomi, and the examining
officer’s work papers.
The administrative file included the information request
that Stanley submitted and included the divorce decree ordering
Stanley to pay, and to hold Tomi harmless from, their joint
Federal income tax liabilities through and including 2001, which
includes petitioners’ joint income tax liability for 1998.
The examining officer’s work papers included records of the
innocent spouse determination interview the examining officer
conducted with Tomi on September 12, 2003. The examining
officer’s work papers show that the examining officer determined
that Tomi was not entitled to relief under section 6015(b) or (c)
because Tomi had actual knowledge of the gambling activity and
Tomi’s lack of knowing the tax consequences was no defense.6
The examining officer also determined that, even though five
factors weighed in favor of granting Tomi relief under section
6015(f), Tomi was not entitled to relief under section 6015(f)
because Tomi had knowledge of the gambling activity. The five
6Ignorance of the law is not a defense for a taxpayer
seeking relief under sec. 6015. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 292
F.3d 800, 803-806 (D.C. Cir. 2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-332;
Cheshire v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 333-335 (5th Cir. 2002),
affg. 115 T.C. 183 (2000); Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959,
964 (9th Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011