Debra Anne Banderas - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          situations where moneys were thought to be available at the time            
          the relevant return was signed and filed.6                                  
               The foregoing conclusion is consistent with the result                 
          reached by this Court in other contexts involving factual                   
          contingencies regarding source of payment.  In Vuxta v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-84, the Court addressed a                     
          taxpayer’s request for relief under section 6015(f) for 1989,               
          1990, and 1991.  The underlying returns showing balances due had            
          been filed on September 17, 1990, September 23, 1991, and May 30,           
          1996, respectively.   The taxpayer and her husband had filed for            

               6 Placement of the modifying prepositional phrase (“On the             
          date the requesting spouse signed the joint return”) in the text            
          of Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02(1)(b), 2003-2 C.B. 296, 298,               
          would not appear to be conclusive on this issue.  While the                 
          Court’s placement of the phrase has varied, certain paraphrases             
          of the standard are amenable to a reading that could require a              
          belief that actual payment of the taxes would occur with the                
          filing of the return.  E.g., Merendino v. Commissioner, T.C.                
          Memo. 2006-2 (“The relevant knowledge in the case of a reported             
          but unpaid liability is that the tax would not be paid when the             
          return was signed.”).  The legislative history of the provision             
          might be open to a similar reading, in that the example supplied            
          indicates Congress intended for equitable relief to be granted              
          where a requesting spouse “does not know, and had no reason to              
          know, that funds intended for the payment of tax were instead               
          taken by the other spouse for such other spouse’s benefit.”  H.             
          Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 254 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 1008.  Again,               
          however, the Court need not decide here whether such usages or              
          examples operate as limitations.                                            
               Additionally, guidelines set forth in the Internal Revenue             
          Manual (IRM) could suggest a more liberal reading, stating:  “A             
          belief the tax would be paid is not reasonable if the RS                    
          [requesting spouse] knew or had reason to know the NRS                      
          [nonrequesting spouse] was not in an economic position, and was             
          not expected to be in an economic position within the foreseeable           
          future, to pay those taxes.”  IRM sec.                    

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007