- 2 -
1981 Federal income tax.1 In Golden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2005-170, the Court decided for respondent through partial
summary adjudication all issues in this case, but for the
correctness of respondent’s denial of a section 6015 claim to
relief (spousal relief) made by Judith A. Golden (petitioner).
We now decide whether respondent abused his discretion in denying
petitioner’s claim to spousal relief.2 We hold he did not.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner and Robert H. Golden (Golden) are married and
resided in Southfield, Michigan, when their petition was filed
with the Court. Petitioner holds a college degree and worked as
an elementary schoolteacher from 1964 to 1969. In 1984, she
completed a course in income tax preparation. Golden is a
practicing attorney and has practiced law since 1961.
In the mid-1970s, Golden invested in a partnership on behalf
of petitioners. Petitioners were each limited partners in the
partnership, and they each received annual reports from the
1 Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 Petitioners invite the Court also to decide an issue as to
the proper interest rate applicable in this case. We decline to
do so. As just noted, the Court decided in Golden v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-170, that respondent will prevail
in this case if the Court holds for respondent as to the spousal
relief claim. We also note that petitioners are deemed to have
stipulated under Rule 91(f) that the only issue left to be
decided is whether petitioner is entitled to spousal relief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007