- 12 -
6015(b)(1). Therefore, the controversy arising from the
deduction of the Boulder Oil and Gas losses focuses on: (1)
Whether petitioner, in signing the joint 1983 tax return, knew or
had reason to know of the understatement; and (2) taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, whether it would be
inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the resulting
deficiency.
The requirement of section 6015(b)(1)(C) is similar to the
requirement of former section 6013(e)(1)(C) in that both
provisions require the requesting spouse to establish “in signing
the return, he or she did not know, and had no reason to know” of
the understatement. Because of their similarities, analysis in
opinions concerning former section 6013(e)(1)(C) remains
instructive to our analysis for section 6015(b)(1)(C). Jonson v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 115 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th
Cir. 2003); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000).
An examination of the record reveals that only Mr. Hendricks
executed the investment papers in Boulder Oil and Gas and that
the partnership interest was placed in his name alone. Mr.
Hendricks paid for the Boulder Oil and Gas investment with checks
drawn from one of his business accounts, to which petitioner had
no access. All mail from Boulder Oil and Gas was sent to Mr.
Hendricks’s business address. Petitioner did not see any mail
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