- 7 -
Rather, the statute mandates only a showing that the requesting
spouse actually knew of the item on the return that gave rise to
the deficiency (or portion thereof), without regard as to whether
he knew of the tax consequences. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 292
F.3d 800, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-332;
Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra.
The items giving rise to the deficiency are the gambling
winnings and dividend and interest income of petitioner, the
actual knowledge of which she admits. Therefore, petitioner is
not entitled to relief under section 6015(c).
Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Section 6015(f) grants the Commissioner discretion to
relieve an individual, where relief is not available under
section 6015(b) or (c), from joint liability if taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to
hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency.
Sec. 6015(f). A requesting spouse bears the burden of proving
that the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying the spouse
equitable relief from joint liability under section 6015(f).
Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 114; Cheshire v. Commissioner,
supra at 198; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 292 (2000).
As previously discussed, petitioner is not entitled to
relief under section 6015(b) or (c). The parties dispute whether
it is inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the 2003
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007