- 6 - Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 195 (2000)). “In the case of omitted income * * *, the electing spouse must have an actual and clear awareness of the omitted income.” Id. Respondent agrees that petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015(c). Intervenor filed her notice of intervention for the purpose of opposing petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015. If intervenor offers sufficient evidence that petitioner had “actual knowledge” of the early retirement distribution, then petitioner should not be entitled to relief under section 6015(c). Intervenor’s testimony that petitioner had actual knowledge about the early retirement distribution is not corroborated by other testimony or evidence. The record demonstrates that intervenor had sole control over the GM 401(k) account and petitioner had no access to the statements for their joint bank account. The record contains no facts which show error in respondent’s position, and the Court concludes that petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the factual circumstances regarding the distribution and that petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(c). Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. Decision will be entered for petitioner.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011