- 24 -
erroneous item is attributable to both.” In addition, respondent
admitted in the notice of determination and in his response to
petitioner’s motion that the facts available to him suggested
that the Foys invested jointly in the Hoyt partnerships.
Nevertheless, respondent failed to consider how the deficiencies
could be allocated between petitioner and her spouse under
section 6015(c) and (d) if respondent’s position regarding their
joint investment was correct. If respondent had made the
allocation that flowed naturally from his position that the Foys
had invested jointly in the Hoyt partnership, he would
necessarily have allocated the Hoyt partnership items between
petitioner and Mr. Foy in accordance with their respective
ownership interests. Respondent also likely would have realized
that he had to prove that petitioner had actual knowledge of the
reasons for disallowing Mr. Foy’s allocable share of the Hoyt
partnership items in order for him to conclude that petitioner
was not entitled to any section 6015(c) relief. Respondent’s
failure to make an allocation under section 6015(c) further
demonstrates that his position was unreasonable.
The fourth flaw in respondent’s position stems from his
failure to make a computation under section 6015(c) and (d) to
reflect his contention that the Foys’ partnership interest in SGE
1984-3 was jointly owned. Had respondent done so, the resulting
calculation would have shown substantially reduced tax
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011