- 56 -
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that in signing the 1982 joint tax return petitioner did
not know, and had no reason to know, of the understatement in
that return. On that record, we further find that petitioner
satisfies section 6015(b)(1)(C) for her taxable year 1982.
Section 6015(b)(1)(D)
Pursuant to section 6015(b)(1)(D), petitioner must establish
that, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiency in tax attrib-
utable to the understatement in the 1982 joint tax return. The
requirement in section 6015(b)(1)(D) is virtually identical to
the requirement of former section 6013(e)(1)(D), and cases
interpreting former section 6013(e) remain instructive to our
analysis. Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 313-314.
The factors that we consider in determining whether it would
be inequitable for purposes of section 6015(b)(1)(D) are the same
factors that we consider in determining whether it would be
inequitable for purposes of section 6015(f). See id. at 316.
One factor considered in determining whether it would be inequi-
table for purposes of section 6015(f) and thus for purposes of
28(...continued)
would have assured her that the claimed $58,089 Madison Recycling
loss and the claimed Madison Recycling credits of $114,407 were
proper. We shall not penalize petitioner for failing to perform
the act of asking Mr. Korchak about that claimed loss and those
claimed credits where such an inquiry would have resulted in his
assuring her that that claimed loss and those claimed credits
were appropriate.
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011