- 7 -
but if they do, both spouses are then responsible for the
return’s accuracy and both are generally liable for the entire
tax due under section 6013(d)(3). Butler v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 276, 282 (2000). In some cases, however, section 6015 can
relieve one spouse from this joint liability. This relief comes
in three varieties: Relief under section 6015(b) requires an
“understatement;” relief under section 6015(c) requires a
“deficiency;”6 but relief under section 6015(f) requires only
that the requesting spouse be “liable for any unpaid tax or any
deficiency.” Therefore, if the liability is neither an
“understatement” nor a “deficiency,” only relief under subsection
(f) is possible. See Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 87-88
(2003).
Section 6015(e) gave us jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner’s innocent spouse determinations under all three
6 The use of “understatement” and “deficiency” in different
subsections of section 6015 seems to reflect their different
origins. Subsection (b) is a modification of the old innocent
spouse section, section 6013(e), that Congress repealed when it
enacted section 6015. The requirement that there be an “under-
statement” is common to both the old and new sections. See
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734; Butler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 283 (2000); H. Conf. Rept. 105-599,
at 249 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1003. Subsections (c) and (f)
were major expansions of innocent spouse relief, and in those
subsections Congress used “deficiency” instead of
“understatement.” Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 189
(2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); H. Conf. Rept.
105-599, supra at 249, 1998-3 C.B. at 1003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011