Charma Gatlin Cook - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          requesting spouse must timely file an election for relief, sec.             
          6015(c)(3)(B); and, at the time the election is filed, she must             
          no longer be married to, or must be legally separated or living             
          apart from, the individual with whom the requesting spouse filed            
          the joint return (the nonrequesting spouse), sec.                           
          6015(c)(3)(A)(i).  Petitioner satisfies those requirements.                 
          Additionally, relief is available to the requesting spouse only             
          for that portion of the deficiency properly allocable to the                
          nonrequesting spouse.  Sec. 6015(c)(1), (d).  Respondent concedes           
          that the deficiency is entirely allocable to Mr. Spruill, and we            
          so find.                                                                    
               B.  Actual Knowledge                                                   
               A requesting spouse who meets the above requirements may yet           
          be denied relief under section 6015(c) if the Commissioner can              
          demonstrate that, at the time the requesting spouse signed the              
          joint return, she had actual knowledge of any item giving rise to           
          a deficiency (or portion thereof) that is not allocable to her.             
          Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C).  Both this court and the Court of Appeals for           
          the Fifth Circuit, the Court of Appeals to which an appeal in               
          this case would lie, barring the parties’ stipulation to the                
          contrary, see sec. 7482(b), have defined culpable knowledge for             
          purposes of sec. 6015(c)(3)(C) as the actual and clear awareness            
          of the item, as distinguished from mere reason to know of the               
          item.  Cheshire v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 337 & n.26 (5th              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011