Timothy J. Glenn - Page 16

                                       - 15 -                                         
               Moreover, on the basis of the entire record and petitioner’s           
          enjoyment of benefits stemming from the distribution, we cannot             
          conclude that it would be inequitable to hold petitioner liable             
          for the deficiency in tax at issue in this case.  Petitioner is             
          not entitled to relief under section 6015(b).                               
               C. Section 6015(c) Analysis                                            
               Section 6015(c) grants relief from joint and several tax               
          liability for electing individuals who filed a joint return and             
          are no longer married, are legally separated, or are living                 
          apart.  Congress intended that such relief from liability be                
          available for tax attributable to items of which the electing               
          spouse had no knowledge.  S. Rept. 105-174, at 55 (1998), 1998-3            
          C.B. 537, 591.  Generally, this type of relief treats spouses,              
          for purposes of determining tax liability, as if separate returns           
          had been filed.  Sec. 6015(d)(3)(A); Grossman v. Commissioner,              
          182 F.3d 275, 278 (4th Cir. 1999), affg. T.C. Memo. 1996-452;               
          Charlton v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333, 342 (2000); Rowe v.                 
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-325.  The allocation, however, is             
          not permitted if the Secretary shows by a preponderance of the              
          evidence that the electing individual had “actual knowledge, at             
          the time such individual signed the return, of any item giving              
          rise to a deficiency (or portion thereof) which is not allocable            
          to such individual”.  Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C); Culver v. Commissioner,           







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011