- 8 -
relief is requested; (2) the requesting spouse did not know or
have reason to know that the income tax liability would not be
paid at the time the joint return was signed; and (3) the
requesting spouse would, absent relief, suffer economic hardship.
Although petitioner was divorced from Mr. Christman at the
time relief was requested, the Court concludes on this record
that petitioner was aware of or had reason to know that the
income tax liability would not be paid at the time she signed the
return for taxable year 1998.7 Petitioner contends she was
unaware that there was a reported tax liability due for 1998. It
is well established that a spouse requesting relief under section
6015 has a duty of inquiry. Butler v. Commissioner, supra at
284. Furthermore, this Court has held that signing a return
imputes constructive knowledge of the contents of that return to
the signer. Simon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-220.
At trial, petitioner claimed she had no reason to know that
if taxes were due for 1998 Mr. Christman would not pay the amount
due at the time the return was filed. Following their failure to
timely file joint returns for 1996 through 1999, it is not
anomalous to presume that there would be taxes, additions to tax,
and/or interest due for those years. The Court does not find
7 At the time their joint income tax return for 1999 was
filed, the amount of tax shown as due was paid in full. Because
relief pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, 2003-2 C.B. at
298, requires an underpayment of tax, petitioner does not qualify
for relief under that section for the year 1999. See Knorr v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-212.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007