- 65 -
the trust scheme must therefore be drawn principally from minutes
of board meetings for HGAMC and HGRCT and from a few comments
made by Mr. Richardson at trial. Neither of these sources is
particularly supportive of petitioners’ position.
Turning to the particular requirements of section 6015(b) in
dispute here, we note that cases interpreting former section
6013(e) remain instructive in our analysis of the parallel
requisites of section 6015(b). Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 283 (2000). Section 6015(b)(1)(B) mandates that the
understatement of tax be attributable to erroneous items of the
nonrequesting spouse. A similar attribution provision was
contained in former section 6013(e)(1)(B) and has been construed
by this and other courts. As regards the pertinent legal
standard, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated:
“where omitted income is generated by the performance of
substantial services by one spouse, that income should be
attributed to that spouse for purposes of section 6013(e)(1).”
Allen v. Commissioner, 514 F.2d 908, 913 (5th Cir. 1975), affg.
in part, revg. in part on another ground, and remanding 61 T.C.
125 (1973). This Court has since applied the foregoing principle
in cases under both 6013(e)(1) and 6015(b)(1). E.g., Ishizaki v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-318; Grubich v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-194.
The understatements for 1996 and 1997 in these cases flowed
in large part from petitioners’ failure to include receipts
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