Philip Ira Maggio, Jr. - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          been allocated if the individual had filed a separate return for            
          the taxable year.                                                           
               A taxpayer is eligible to elect relief under section 6015(c)           
          if, at the time the election is filed, the taxpayer is no longer            
          married to or is legally separated from the individual with whom            
          the taxpayer filed the joint return to which the election                   
          relates.  Sec. 6015(c)(3)(A)(i)(I).  The election under section             
          6015(c) may be made at any time after a deficiency for such year            
          is asserted and no later than 2 years after the date on which the           
          Commissioner has begun collection activities with respect to the            
          taxpayer making the election.  Sec. 6015(c)(3)(B).  Petitioner              
          and intervenor were divorced on May 22, 2003, and petitioner’s              
          election was made soon after his receipt of the notice of                   
          deficiency.  Therefore, petitioner was entitled to seek relief              
          under section 6015(c) to limit his liability for the 2002 tax               
          deficiency.                                                                 
               Relief under section 6015(c) is not available if petitioner            
          had actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the deficiency.             
          Sec. 6015(c)(3)(c); King v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 198, 203                 
          (2001).  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 which gives rise to             
          the deficiency (or portion thereof).’”  King v. Commissioner,               
          supra at 203 (quoting Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 195).              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011