- 21 -
record in the case at bar, we find petitioner knew or had reason
to know that the reported liability would be unpaid at the time
the return was signed. This factor favors denying relief to
petitioner.
5. Nonrequesting Spouse’s Legal Obligation
As previously noted, petitioner and Mr. Tillotson were
divorced on November 27, 2000, by a divorce decree entered by the
District Court of Hunt County, Texas. The divorce decree states,
in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that DAVID ALLEN TILLOTSON
and WENDY LANETTE TILLOTSON shall be equally responsible for
all federal income tax liabilities of the parties from the
date of marriage through December 31, 1998, and each party
shall timely pay 50 percent of any deficiencies,
assessments, penalties, or interest due thereon and shall
indemnify and hold the other party and his or her property
harmless from 50 percent of such liabilities unless such
additional tax, penalty, and/or interest resulted from a
party’s omission of taxable income or claim of erroneous
deductions. In such case, the portion of the tax, penalty,
and/or interest relating to the omitted income of claims of
erroneous deductions shall be paid by the party who earned
the omitted income or proffered the claim for an erroneous
deduction. The parties agree that nothing contained herein
shall be construed as or is intended as a waiver of any
rights that a party has under the “Innocent Spouse”
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(e), indicates that if Mr.
Tillotson had a legal obligation under the divorce decree to pay
the tax liabilities, then that fact would weigh in favor of
granting relief to petitioner. Likewise, if the divorce decree
placed the obligation to pay the taxes on petitioner, then that
fact would weigh against granting relief to her as indicated in
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011