Francine Edwards - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          affirmative defense within our traditional deficiency                       
          jurisdiction pursuant to section 6213(a).  Therefore, the Court             
          lacks jurisdiction to review the IRS’s decision to grant innocent           
          spouse relief to petitioner’s former spouse.                                
          2. Joint and Several Liability                                              
               Petitioner contends that she should not be liable for the              
          full amount of the deficiency.  Rather, she argues, her liability           
          should be limited to 50 percent since it was a joint return, her            
          former spouse knew about the unreported items, and he received              
          the benefits of the erroneous joint return (i.e., she alleges               
          that he received half of the $4,114 refund, and had the items               
          been reported correctly, the refund would have been about $330).            
               In general, section 6013(d)(3) provides that if a joint                
          return is filed, the tax is computed on the individuals’                    
          aggregate income, and liability for the resulting tax is joint              
          and several.  See also sec. 1.6013-4(b), Income Tax Regs.  A                
          fundamental characteristic of joint and several liability is that           
          the IRS, at its option, may proceed against the taxpayers                   
          separately and may obtain a separate judgment against each.  See            
          Dolan v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 420 (1965).  The decision to                 
          assess or not assess tax against one of the spouses who filed a             
          joint return does not prevent the IRS from proceeding against the           
          other.  See id.; see also Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008