- 4 -
from self-employment, sec. 1.6017-1(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.3
We conclude that the third contention quoted above does not
require any change to the Special Trial Judge’s recommended
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In petitioner’s objections, petitioner also contends that
“Nothing in the record substantiates the findings of the” Special
Trial Judge. We disagree. Based upon our examination of the
entire record in this case, we conclude that that record amply
supports the Special Trial Judge’s recommended findings of fact
and conclusions of law. In so concluding, we have given appro-
priate deference to the Special Trial Judge’s recommended find-
ings of fact, as required by Rule 183(d).4
We have made changes to the grounds upon which the Special
Trial Judge held that the Court has jurisdiction over the instant
case, where no deficiency has been asserted, to review the denial
of equitable relief under section 6015(f). That is because,
after the Special Trial Judge’s recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law were filed and served, there were judicial and
3As discussed below, in certain circumstances, a spouse may
obtain relief from joint and several liability for self-employ-
ment tax on net earnings from self-employment reported in a joint
return if the requirements of sec. 6015 are satisfied.
4Rule 183(d) requires (1) that due regard be given to the
circumstance that the Special Trial Judge had the opportunity to
evaluate the credibility of witnesses and (2) that the findings
of fact recommended by the Special Trial Judge be presumed to be
correct.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007