- 8 -
Petitioner testified that she had intended to file a joint return
with Dr. Geaccone in 2001, but that alternative was not feasible,
because of the lack of cooperation between them by the time the
2001 income tax return was prepared. We found petitioner to be a
credible witness. Nonetheless, her testimony and the record in
this case do not satisfy the statutory requirement. Section 1.66-
4(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs., provides:
If the requesting spouse is aware of the source of community
income or the income-producing activity, but is unaware of
the specific amount of the nonrequesting spouse’s community
income, the requesting spouse is considered to have knowledge
or reason to know of the item of community income. The
requesting spouse’s lack of knowledge of the specific amount
of community income does not provide a basis for relief under
this section.
There is no doubt that petitioner knew that Dr. Geaccone was
a dentist and that he earned income from his dental practice, even
though she might not have known the specific amount. The record
shows that petitioner and Dr. Geaccone filed joint returns for tax
years 1992 through 2000. Petitioner testified that she knew the
balance that was due on those returns. We conclude from
petitioner’s testimony that she knew of the item of community
income giving rise to the deficiency for the tax year 2001.
Even though we find that petitioner does not meet all four
requirements set forth in section 66(c),2 she may nevertheless
2Because we find that petitioner has not satisfied the third
requirement of sec. 66(c), we need not consider the fourth.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007