- 52 -
should be satisfied by the payment of the tax
attributable to that spouse’s income and that an
election to limit a spouse’s liability to that amount
is appropriate. [S. Rept. 105-174, supra at 55, 1998-3
C.B. at 591.]
The limited legislative history, however, is immaterial in the
light of the plain and precise language of the statute. Mansell
v. Mansell, 490 U.S. at 592, 594. “Congress is not required to
build a record in the legislative history to defend its policy
choices.” Id.
F. Common Law States and Community Property States
Section 6015 applies to taxpayers in common law
jurisdictions and community property jurisdictions. Denying
petitioner a refund of community assets used to pay Mr. Ordlock’s
understatements creates an inequity between taxpayers in
community property jurisdictions and taxpayers in common law
jurisdictions.
To obtain a refund pursuant to section 6015, taxpayers in
common law jurisdictions, like the electing spouse in Washington,
must prove the amount they paid toward the underpayment or
understatement attributable to the nonelecting spouse (i.e., do
tracing). See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 163; Rooks
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-127. The majority prevents
taxpayers in community property States from obtaining refunds of
community property payments that can be traced to the spouse
entitled to relief. I believe the directive in section 6015(a)
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011