- 18 -
excess was taxable at 15 percent. The amount of that excess plus
petitioner’s $14,204 of taxable income totaled $30,888.50. For
married individuals who filed a joint return for 1994, only
taxable income in excess of $38,000 would have been taxed at a
rate greater than 15 percent rate. Thus, contrary to
petitioner’s assertions, it was not her erroneous items that
reduced Mr. Capehart’s tax rate, but rather it was Mr. Capehart’s
erroneous items that reduced his tax rate.
Because petitioner was unable to compute the portion of her
erroneous items that provided the asserted benefit to Mr.
Capehart, and because Mr. Capehart’s tax rate was not reduced by
petitioner’s erroneous items that were allocated to Mr. Capehart
pursuant to the formula set forth in section 1.6015-
3(d)(4)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs., petitioner has not shown that
the regulation is invalid.
iii. Proportionate to Taxable Income
Petitioner also complains that, while her 1994 taxable
income was only 27 percent of the total taxable income for 1994,
the proportionate allocation method provided in section 1.6015-
3(d)(4)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs., allocates 34 percent of the
deficiency to her. The succinct response to petitioner’s
complaint is that Congress did not allocate the deficiency in
proportion to the spouses’ respective shares of taxable income
when formulating the relief to be granted under section 6015(c).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011