- 22 -
requesting spouse. Mrs. Payne had reason to know in each year at
issue that HRDC’s returns understated its taxes. Mrs. Payne
worked in HRDC’s offices and was responsible, with Ms. Enerson,
for maintaining HRDC’s books and records. Mrs. Payne was aware
that the money from the extras was not deposited into HRDC’s bank
account, and Mrs. Payne testified that at some point she knew the
tax returns were based upon bank deposit records. She also
helped Ms. Enerson compile information for Mr. Gunderson to
complete the returns. In addition, petitioners owned HRDC in
approximately equal shares in 1993 and 1994. Mr. and Mrs. Payne
both worked for HRDC, and together they were involved in all
aspects of the business. Because of their involvement, it is
difficult to conclude that the unreported income received by
petitioners through HRDC in 1993 and 1994 was not attributable to
one spouse or the other. Therefore, Mrs. Payne is not entitled
to relief under section 6015(b).
Section 6015(f) gives the Commissioner discretion to grant
innocent spouse relief to a requesting spouse if relief is not
available under subsection (b) or (c) and, taking into account
all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the
requesting spouse liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency. We
review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under subsection (f)
for an abuse of discretion. Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C.
137, 146 (2003). Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, contains
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