- 28 -
believes Ms. Cochran should have considered but that he was
unable to produce because of the deadline for submission. Given
the thoroughness and the amount of information submitted, it is
unclear why petitioner needed additional time. We do not believe
that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by establishing a deadline
for the submission of information.
4. Mrs. Johnson’s Pending Innocent Spouse Case
Petitioner argues that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
considering Mrs. Johnson’s income and assets even though Mrs.
Johnson currently has an innocent spouse case pending before the
Tax Court.16 Petitioner’s argument is without merit.
The final notice and the notice of determination were issued
to petitioner only. Nevertheless, petitioner filed a Form 656
jointly with Mrs. Johnson and indicated that he was seeking to
compromise both his and Mrs. Johnson’s outstanding tax
liabilities for 1981 through 1996. Additionally, the Form 433-A
was submitted jointly and included the assets of both petitioner
and Mrs. Johnson. Petitioner did not identify which assets, if
any, belonged to Mrs. Johnson, and instead grouped all of the
assets together. It is not reasonable to expect Ms. Cochran to
16 In support of his argument, petitioner cites sec.
6015(e)(1)(B)(i), which states that “no levy or proceeding in
court shall be made, begun, or prosecuted against” a taxpayer
requesting innocent spouse relief. This section is not relevant.
There is no indication that respondent has sought to levy against
Mrs. Johnson’s separate property.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011