- 10 - King v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 198, 203 (2001). The “knowledge standard” for purposes of section 6015(c)(3)(C) “‘is 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).’” King v. Commissioner, supra at 203 (quoting Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 195 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002)). “‘In the case of omitted income * * *, the electing spouse must have an actual and clear awareness of the omitted income.’” Id. Respondent concedes that he cannot demonstrate petitioner had actual knowledge of the items giving rise to the deficiencies. However, if intervenor offers sufficient evidence that petitioner had “actual knowledge” of the omitted gross receipts, then petitioner should not be entitled to relief under section 6015(c). Intervenor alleges that petitioner had actual knowledge of the omitted gross receipts because she controlled the Bank One account. As discussed above, intervenor controlled the Bank One account, not petitioner. Additionally, intervenor controlled all of the business records, prepared the tax returns for the years at issue, did not allow petitioner to review the tax returns, and forged petitioner’s signature on the tax returns. We find that petitioner had no actual knowledge of the omitted grossPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007