Michael Alan Swanson, Petitioner, and Judith N. Swanson, Intervenor - Page 12

                                       - 11 -                                         
          spouse who failed to report the income shall be solely                      
          responsible for any deficiency, including taxes, penalties and              
          interest.”  Petitioner testified that he used the software                  
          program to complete and file their tax return and that he                   
          misunderstood that the pension was, in fact, taxable.  Therefore,           
          while the agreement holds petitioner and intervenor liable for              
          the deficiencies that arise from their own income, petitioner was           
          ultimately aware of the pension at the time he filed the return.            
          We find this fact ultimately dispositive.                                   
               As to the fifth factor, petitioner received a substantial              
          benefit in that the overpayment due on the joint return was                 
          applied to joint tax liabilities petitioner owed for taxable                
          years 1997 and 1998.  In addition, after the overpayment was                
          applied to the outstanding liabilities, petitioner received a               
          refund of more than $1,200.                                                 
               Petitioner’s failure to satisfy all but one3 of the factors            
          in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03 is determinative.  On these                
          facts and circumstances, the Court holds that there was no abuse            
          of discretion by respondent in denying relief to petitioner under           
          section 6015(f).  The Court, therefore, sustains that denial.               
               Because we have already sustained respondent, we need not              


               3 With reference to the sixth factor, we note that at trial,           
          respondent asserted that petitioner had not timely filed income             
          tax returns for taxable years 2000 and 2001.  Petitioner did not            
          rebut this assertion.                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011