- 8 -
The only information received was a statement documenting *
* * [petitioner’s] testimony at the conference and some
child support checks issued by her ex-husband in 2000.
Subsequent discussions with the taxpayer and her Power of
Attorney did not result in any further documentation. The
taxpayer has raised no other collection alternatives. The
decision on the appropriateness of the proposed collection
action was made based on the information in the case file,
the information available in the master file account, the
assessment information, and on information submitted by the
taxpayer. No financial information was provided to allow a
decision based on financial circumstances.
Because petitioner presented no additional information to
establish she had no knowledge of intervenor’s underreporting of
the pension distribution, the Appeals officer found no basis for
overturning the denial of the original request for relief on the
basis of knowledge.
Petitioner asserts she did not know of the 1996 tax
understatement attributable to the distribution to intervenor of
his deceased mother’s pension because she was told that
intervenor’s sole inheritance was from the sale of Ms. Carlin’s
residence. Petitioner readily admitted she was aware intervenor
received approximately $200,000 after Ms. Carlin passed away;
however, petitioner contended she believed the entire amount came
from the sale of Ms. Carlin’s residence and had no reason to
believe otherwise. The knowledge standard for purposes of
section 6015(c)(3)(C) is an actual and clear awareness, as
opposed to reason to know, of the existence of an item that gives
rise to the deficiency. Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 195.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011