- 16 -
The parties here agree that petitioner satisfies the
requirements of section 6015(b)(1)(A) and (E). Petitioner
contends, and respondent disputes, that she satisfies the
requirements of section 6015(b)(1)(B), (C), and (D).
The return for 1979 is not in evidence. Nor is there any
other documentary evidence concerning the nature of the
adjustment giving rise to the 1979 deficiency of $26,520 in
additional tax that respondent assessed on October 10, 1988. At
trial, Levy testified that the adjustment concerned a tax shelter
in which he invested during 1978 or 1979. He maintained, and we
have found, that while petitioner signed the 1979 return, she did
not examine or review the return. He said, and we have found,
that he never discussed the 1979 return with her or the liability
that might be owed.
Section 6015(b)(1)(C) requires petitioner to establish that
in signing the 1979 return, she did not know and had no reason to
know of the 1979 deficiency. An appeal in this case generally
would lie in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
absent an agreement to the contrary concerning appellate venue.
The principal Eleventh Circuit cases interpreting the “no reason
to know” requirement are Kistner v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 1521,
1525-1527 (11th Cir. 1994), revg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-
463, and Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011