- 36 -
Generally, blind reliance upon the other spouse to handle
tax issues is not sufficient to allow the requesting spouse to
avoid liability under section 6015. See Butler v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 276, 283-284 (2000). However, Mrs. Dunne asked Mr.
Dunne whether the sale of his FRC stock would create any problems
relating to their taxes, and Mr. Dunne assured her that he was
handling the sale properly according to advice from his attorney.
This is a unique case with complicated facts and legal issues,
and we find that Mrs. Dunne satisfied her duty of inquiry. See
Juell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-219. Therefore, we find
that Mrs. Dunne did not have actual or constructive knowledge
that there was an omission on petitioners’ 1997 tax return and
thus satisfies the section 6015(b)(1)(C) requirement.
However, Mrs. Dunne fails to satisfy the fourth condition.
Under section 6015(b)(1)(D), relief is available under that
section only if, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the requesting
spouse liable for the deficiency. The two most often cited
factors to be considered are: (1) Whether there has been a
significant benefit to the spouse claiming relief, and (2)
whether the failure to report the correct tax liability on the
joint return results from concealment, overreaching, or any other
wrongdoing on the part of the other spouse. Alt v. Commissioner,
supra at 314.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008