Cheryl Kunsman - Page 12
- 11 -
return. Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C). Respondent must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that petitioner had “an actual and
clear awareness (as opposed to reason to know) of the existence
of an item which gives rise to the deficiency (or portion
thereof)”. Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 195; Charlton v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 341-342.
As discussed above, we have found that petitioner had actual
knowledge of the IRA distribution. Therefore, petitioner is not
eligible for relief under section 6015(c).7
Where relief is unavailable under section 6015(b) or (c),
section 6015(f) grants the Commissioner discretion to relieve an
individual from joint liability if it is inequitable to hold the
individual liable, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances. Sec. 6015(f). As discussed above, petitioner is
not entitled to relief under section 6015(b) or (c).
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent
abused his discretion in denying relief under section 6015(f).
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d
1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 198;
Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 292.
7 Petitioner testified that her former spouse became violent
at the end of their marriage in late 2001, but she did not
demonstrate that her signing the 1999 joint return in 2000 was
anything but voluntary. Therefore, the exception for duress in
sec. 6015(c)(3)(C) does not apply.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007