- 21 -
did not have to evaluate the effect of his joint investment
position under section 6015(c) before adopting his litigating
position because petitioner did not agree that the partnership
interest in question was a joint investment. Respondent’s
contention confuses a disagreement about the allocation that must
be made under section 6015(d) with his obligation under section
6015(c) to allocate the tax liability if the requirements of
section 6015(c) are met.
In this case, petitioner properly elected to have the
deficiencies at issue allocated between herself and Mr. Bulger as
required by section 6015(c)(3). By the time petitioner made her
election, respondent had already conducted an audit of
petitioner’s tax returns and an extensive examination of the Hoyt
organization and had obtained extensive information regarding
petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015. Respondent’s
argument in his response to petitioner’s motion that he needed
more information from petitioner to evaluate whether petitioner
was somehow disqualified by section 6015(c)(3)(A)(ii) or (C) from
making an election under section 6015(c) simply does not ring
true. Respondent’s litigating position as summarized in his
answer did not make any allegation regarding section
6015(c)(3)(A)(ii) or (C);15 respondent simply denied that he had
15The answer did deny, on the basis of lack of knowledge or
information, the representation in the petition as to sec.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011