- 62 -
fraud. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Jackson v. Commissioner, 380
F.2d 661, 664 (6th Cir. 1967), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-330.
Furthermore, it must be noted that it is the false or
fraudulent return that holds the statute open. Ballard v.
Commissioner, 740 F.2d 659, 663 (8th Cir. 1984), affg. in part
and revg. in part on another ground T.C. Memo. 1982-466; Allen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-125. As a result, this and other
courts have long held that where a joint return is filed, fraud
by one spouse will serve to lift the statute of limitations as
to, and permit assessment against, both spouses. E.g., Ballard
v. Commissioner, supra at 663; Carsendino v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-79; Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-264;
Allen v. Commissioner, supra.
Because respondent here has by clear and convincing evidence
proven fraud on the part of Mr. Richardson for the reasons
explained above, assessment of petitioners’ 1996 and 1997 tax
liabilities is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Petitioners’ intonations at various junctures that
Mrs. Richardson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
statute of limitations grounds are without legal basis or merit.
VII. Relief From Joint and Several Liability
Notwithstanding the Court’s rulings on the foregoing issues,
petitioners assert that Mrs. Richardson is in any event entitled
to relief from joint and several liability under section
6015(b)(1). As a general rule, section 6013(d)(3) provides that
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011