- 8 -
the accuracy-related penalty.6 According to petitioner, it was
Mr. Glenn’s sole responsibility to maintain their household
finances; she had no knowledge or control of their household
finances during tax year 2001 or prior years; she had no
knowledge of the existence of Mr. Glenn’s section 401(k) plan
maintained by his employer, Kronos, Inc., through T. Rowe Price;
she did not know that the proceeds were withdrawn by Mr. Glenn
during tax year 2001 and placed into their joint accounts with
Harris Trust & Savings Bank; and she had no control of the
proceeds which were placed in the joint accounts with Harris
Trust & Savings Bank. On these grounds, petitioner contends that
pursuant to section 6015(f) she is eligible for relief from joint
liability on the unpaid additional tax liability remaining from
the early withdrawal.
Discussion
Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitioner
bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner,
6In Glenn v. Commissioner, at docket No. 7249-04S, we found
that Mr. Glenn acted with reasonable cause and good faith as to
the underpayment attributable to the unreported 10-percent
additional tax under sec. 72(t). Accordingly, we held that Mr.
Glenn is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to
sec. 6662(a). Because we held that Mr. Glenn was not liable for
the accuracy-related penalty, we would assume that respondent
would not collect the accuracy-related penalty from petitioner,
even though she is unable in the present proceeding to challenge
the underlying liability of her and Mr. Glenn’s tax deficiency
for taxable year 2001.
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