- 13 -
Overton, however, as executor of John’s estate, contacted
respondent’s Compliance Office and objected to petitioner’s
request for innocent spouse relief. At the hearing, Overton
alleged that petitioner actively participated in the day-to-day
operation of John’s business, that petitioner owned a 50-percent
interest in MGI, and that petitioner was financially able to bear
the burden of payment of petitioner and John’s 1995 joint Federal
income taxes. Overton also expressed concern that if petitioner
were granted relief, respondent’s claim for payment from John’s
estate of additional amounts likely would reduce any payment her
son might receive from John’s estate.
Respondent’s Compliance Office reviewed Overton’s objection
to petitioner’s request for innocent spouse relief but did not
alter the proposal to grant full relief to petitioner.
On August 20, 2004, Overton mailed a letter to respondent’s
Compliance Office in which she formally objected to any relief
being given to petitioner. Based on Overton’s written objection,
respondent’s Compliance Office transferred petitioner’s request
for innocent spouse relief to respondent’s Appeals Office for
further review.3
On November 17, 2004, respondent’s Appeals Office determined
that petitioner qualified for relief from joint liability under
3 At the trial herein, Overton did not participate as a
party, but she did testify as a witness.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011