- 7 - unallowable, because Hoyt engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive them and it was the fraudulent scheme that caused the tax items to be unallowable. The Hoyt investors were adjudged to be victims of a fraud, which by definition means they were deceived as to the nature of their investment and the facts giving rise to the disallowance of their investment related tax deductions. The cover letter attached to petitioner’s administrative appeal stated that “We will provide additional factual information once we are contacted by the Appeals Officer.” On September 9, 2002, the Appeals Office issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief Under the Equitable Relief Provision of Section 6015(f) (notice of determination) denying petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015. Although the notice of determination referenced only section 6015(f), the explanation of adjustments addressed petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015(b), (c), and (f). The explanation of adjustments stated as follows with respect to petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015(c): IRC SECTION 6015(c)--Election to Allocate Deficiency This subsection is commonly called “separation of liability” which prorates a deficiency between spouses filing a joint return based on their proportionate share of earnings. Under this section, the requesting spouse must establish certain conditions before a relief [sic] can be granted. Even if you meet the requirements for being a widow, your request for separation of liability will not be granted because you had actual knowledge or the reason to know of the items giving rise to the deficiency that were allocable to your spouse. [Emphasis added.]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