Wendell Ray Holloway - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          trial, we do not need to consider whether testimony in addition             
          to the administrative record may be considered.  The stipulation            
          includes documents that were not included in the administrative             
          record in this case, and respondent has maintained a relevance              
          objection to those documents.  Because we agree with respondent’s           
          relevance objection, we need not address respondent’s contention            
          that we are limited to the administrative record.                           
               Married taxpayers who elect to file a joint Federal income             
          tax return are jointly and severally liable for the entire tax              
          due for the year of the return.  Sec. 6013(d)(3).  A spouse (a              
          requesting spouse) may seek relief from joint and several                   
          liability by following the procedures established in section                
          6015.  If the disputed liability involves nonpayment of taxes               
          shown on a joint return, the only relief available is under                 
          section 6015(f).  See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137,             
          146-147 (2003).  Thus, the relief pursued by and granted to                 
          Ms. Holloway was relief under section 6015(f).                              
               Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner is fully              
          responsible for the unpaid amounts, whether or not Ms. Holloway             
          is also responsible.  Petitioner has provided neither reason nor            
          authority supporting his assertion that relief given to                     
          Ms. Holloway should preclude the proposed levy against his assets           
          or that his claim is the type of “spousal defense” contemplated             
          under section 6330.  Neither he nor the Court has the ability to            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007