- 7 -
Resp. Br. at 30. This would have led to the determination of a
deficiency and presumably allowed David to file a petition
seeking relief under a different part of section 6015. See,
e.g., Haltom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-209.
Even under section 6015(f), Billings’s position is not a
weak one. In Rosenthal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-89, the
petitioner was a widow who also had no knowledge of omitted
income (in her case, an unreported IRA distribution to her late
husband) when she signed the original return, but did know about
it when she signed the amended return that corrected that
omission. We found that the Commissioner had abused his
discretion by not giving her innocent spouse relief:
It is unpersuasive to argue, as does
respondent, that petitioner’s voluntary
filing of an amended 1996 return and her
attendant payment of the delinquent taxes
attributable to the omission of income
from the original 1996 return militate
against equitable relief simply because
she had to have known of the omission
before she filed the amended return and
made the payment.
Id.
Before this case was tried, Billings and the Commissioner
fully stipulated the facts under Rule 122. Billings was a
resident of Kansas when he filed his petition, which means an
appeal lies to the Tenth Circuit unless the parties stipulate
differently.
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