- 37 -
return, and (4) the Bussells had a 1996 tax due and owing to the
United States. In addition, the First Superseding Indictment
indicates as to the other counts that the United States’ position
as to those counts did not involve nor require a finding that BBL
was not formed for a valid business purpose or that BBL did not
engage in any business activity. We decline on the basis of the
record before us to conclude that respondent’s position here is
clearly inconsistent with the United States’ position in the
criminal case, that respondent is a party who succeeded in
persuading the criminal court to accept an earlier contrary
position, or that respondent is a party seeking to assert an
inconsistent position in this case and would derive an unfair
advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if
not estopped.
IV. Section 6015 Relief
Petitioner in her petition alleged as an affirmative defense
that she was entitled to relief under section 6015 from joint and
several liability (joint liability) as to her 1996 Federal income
tax return. See, e.g., Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276,
287-289 (2000) (a taxpayer may seek relief from joint liability
on a joint return by raising the matter as an affirmative defense
in a petition for a redetermination of a deficiency filed under
section 6213). Spouses filing a joint Federal income tax return
are generally jointly liable for the tax shown on the return or
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011