Victoria K.M. Freulich - Page 8




                                        - 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