- 6 -
knowledge, and she pointed out that this Court had granted relief
under section 6015(c) to another Hoyt investor under similar
factual circumstances in Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279
(2001). Although petitioner’s attorney continued to maintain in
the July 22 letter that petitioner was not a partner in the Hoyt
partnerships in which petitioner and Mr. Foy had invested and
that, therefore, the Hoyt partnership items on their 1981-1986
returns were items properly allocated to Mr. Foy, a fair reading
of petitioner’s contention is that she was entitled to relief
under section 6015(c) and that she did not have any actual
knowledge of the items giving rise to the deficiencies that were
allocable to Mr. Foy.
Approximately 2 months later, respondent issued a Notice of
Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief Under the
Equitable Relief Provision of Section 6015(f) (notice of
determination) with respect to petitioner’s request for relief
under section 6015. Although the notice of determination
referenced only section 6015(f), the explanation of adjustments
addressed petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015(b),
(c), and (f). The explanation of adjustments stated as follows
with respect to petitioner’s request for relief under section
6015(c):
IRC SECTION 6015(c)--Election to Allocate Deficiency
This subsection is commonly called “separation of
liability” which prorates a deficiency between spouses
filing a joint return based on their proportionate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011