- 7 -
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-325. Relief under section
6015(c), however, is not available if the Commissioner
demonstrates that the requesting spouse had actual knowledge, at
the time the return was signed, of any item giving rise to a
deficiency (or portion thereof) that is not allocable to such
individual.4 Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C); Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121
T.C. 73, 86 (2003); Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 193-194.
As noted above, Ms. Lewallen had actual knowledge of Mr.
Munsinger’s employment with Progress Rail Services, the item
giving rise to the underpayment not allocable to her; therefore,
relief is not available to Ms. Lewallen under section 6015(c).
3. Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Section 6015(f) grants the Commissioner discretion to
relieve an individual, where relief is not available under
section 6015(b) or (c), from joint liability if taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to
4 The knowledge requirement under sec. 6015(c)(3)(C) does
not require the requesting spouse to possess actual knowledge of
the tax consequences arising from the item giving rise to the
deficiency. Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 86 (2003);
Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 194 (2000), affd. 282
F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); sec. 1.6015-3(c)(2), Income Tax Regs.
Rather, the statute mandates only a showing that the requesting
spouse actually knew of the item on the return that gave rise to
the deficiency (or portion thereof), without regard as to whether
he or she knew of the tax consequences. Mitchell v.
Commissioner, 292 F.3d 800, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2002), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2000-332; Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra. In the instant
case, however, we are convinced that Ms. Lewallen also knew that
wages are includable as income and fully taxable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007