Shuang-Di Sun Bennett - Page 25

                                       - 24 -                                         
          and to withdraw money or to write checks from their joint bank              
                    1. Knowledge, or Reason To Know, About the Items of               
                       Community Income Reported on Petitioner’s Return               
               Petitioner did not argue that she did not know about the               
          $723 of interest income or the $2,180 in distributions from her             
          IRA that were reported on her return.                                       
               However, with respect to the $31,385 of wages petitioner               
          purportedly earned from Premium Fresh Juice, petitioner testified           
          that Mr. Bennett placed her on his company’s payroll without her            
          knowledge.14  In evaluating whether petitioner knew, or had                 

               13  We have granted relief from joint and several liability            
          on a joint return in cases involving an unsophisticated spouse              
          and a controlling spouse who misled, controlled, or hid financial           
          matters from the unsophisticated spouse.  See, e.g., Guth v.                
          Commissioner, 897 F.2d 441, 442 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1987-522; Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1989);              
          Laird v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-564.  These cases involved           
          relief from joint and several liability on a joint return                   
          pursuant to former sec. 6013 and sec. 6015 rather than relief               
          under sec. 66.  However, we believe that interpretations of                 
          spousal relief from joint liability are instructive to our                  
          interpretation of equitable relief from community income.  See,             
          e.g., Beck v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-198.                            
               14  Although we previously concluded that petitioner had               
          knowledge or reason to know of Mr. Bennett’s wages from Premium             
          Fresh Juice for purposes of sec. 66(c)(3) because a taxpayer’s              
          knowledge of a particular item of community income is determined            
          with reference to knowledge of a particular income-producing                
          activity, see supra pp. 18-19, that conclusion has no bearing on            
          the wages purportedly earned by petitioner.  Although both                  
          petitioner’s purported wages and Mr. Bennett’s wages were from              
          Premium Fresh Juice, they are distinctly different.  We have                
          concluded that petitioner, unlike Mr. Bennett, did not perform              
          services for Premium Fresh Juice and, thus, amounts paid to her             

Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011