- 18 -
out of community assets. See McIntyre v. United States, 222 F.3d
655 (9th Cir. 2000); see also sec. 6321. However, under
petitioner’s section 6015 argument, if married spouses filed
jointly, the Government could not collect out of community assets
without some tracing mechanism when one spouse receives section
6015 relief. Without Congress’s explicit rationale or statement
of such an intent, we find this result to be inconsistent.
B. Disregarding Community Property Laws in the Context of
Section 6015(g) Would Create Potential Abuse
We must avoid an interpretation of section 6015(g) that
would create a potential for abuse by allowing community property
laws to be disregarded during the collection process. Because
section 6015 relief is often granted many years after the taxable
year at issue, the timespan offers an opportunity to change the
source of the payments that are otherwise community property. In
an effort to avoid paying tax liabilities, married taxpayers in
community property States could structure future payments so that
ownership is attributable to the spouse requesting relief under
section 6015, while continuing a jointly financed lifestyle.
C. Did Congress Leave Open the Question of How To Divide
Property Between Spouses for Collection Purposes?
As stated previously, another problem with petitioner’s
position is the lack of legislative direction regarding how to
divide the assets between spouses in community property States
for collection purposes. If we adopt petitioner’s interpretation
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011