- 10 -
Tax Regs.3 Our precedents taught us that this meant whether “a
reasonably prudent taxpayer in his or her position, at the time
he or she signed the return, could be expected to know that the
return contained an understatement or that further investigation
was warranted.” Butler, 114 T.C. at 283; see also Park v.
Commissioner, 25 F.3d 1289, 1293 (5th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-252. In shorthand form, this means that a spouse
seeking relief has a “duty of inquiry.” Butler, 114 T.C. at 283.
This duty is a subjective test--its focus is on the
individual seeking innocent spouse relief. It recognizes that
the suspicions of a spouse who is a highly skilled lawyer or
accountant should reasonably be triggered more easily than a
stay-at-home mom with a high school education. Compare Ohrman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-301 (requesting spouse was lending
officer at two large banks who controlled the family finances),
with Pietromonaco v. Commissioner, 3 F.3d 1342, 1345-1347 (9th
Cir. 1993) (requesting spouse was stay-at-home mom with high
school education), revg. T.C. Memo. 1991-472. We have a large
3 Section 6015 took effect on July 22, 1998, but the
regulations interpreting the section didn’t take effect until
July 18, 2002. See sec. 1.6015-2, Income Tax Regs. For requests
(like the one at issue in this case) made during the intervening
four years, we apply the regulations interpreting section 6013,
the predecessor of section 6015, in cases arising under section
6015(b). See Kling v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-78; Braden
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-69. See generally Shirley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-188 (proper to use regulations of
repealed section if new section nearly identical).
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