Phyllis E. Campbell - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint                 
          Federal income tax return.  Sec. 6013(a).  Section 6013(d)(3)               
          provides that taxpayers filing a joint return are jointly and               
          severally liable for all taxes due.  However, under certain                 
          circumstances, section 6015 provides relief to taxpayers seeking            
          to be relieved from joint and several liability.  Section 6015              
          offers three types of relief:  (1) Full or partial relief under             
          section 6015(b); (2) proportionate relief under section 6015(c);            
          and (3) equitable relief under section 6015(f).  Petitioner seeks           
          relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b), or           
          in the alternative, section 6015(f).  We have jurisdiction to               
          determine whether equitable relief is available to petitioner for           
          the deficiency in tax shown on her joint return.  See Ewing v.              
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 502 (2002).                                     
               The taxpayer who files a petition under section 6015(e)                
          generally bears the burden of proof with certain exceptions not             
          applicable in this case.  Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119             
          T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004);              
          Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d            
          1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Baumann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                  
          2005-31.  However, the burden of proof issue does not influence             
          the outcome of this case because our decision is based on the               
          preponderance of the evidence.  See Blodgett v. Commissioner, 394           






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011