- 8 -
Respondent examined petitioner’s and Mr. Lepordo’s 2000 Form
1040 and made three adjustments to income: (a) Total wages of
$86,691 ($59,084 + $27,607); (b) $13,632 in taxable pension and
annuity income received by Mr. Lepordo; and (c) $1,791 in
gambling income received by Mr. Lepordo. The adjustments
resulted in a net tax due of $6,758 as of the date of the notice
of deficiency, consisting of the $17,701 deficiency
determination, a $1,041 accuracy-related penalty under section
6662, $512 of interest due, and $12,496 of withholding credits.4
Respondent granted petitioner partial relief of $3,267,
determining that she had no knowledge of Mr. Lepordo’s gambling
income and pension distributions. Respondent denied relief as to
$704.88. Although it is not clear from the record, the Court
assumes that respondent’s denial of relief was due to a
determination to allocate petitioner’s salary to her and to
ascribe to petitioner actual knowledge of Mr. Lepordo’s salary
because of the Form W-2 enclosed with the letter and the blank
2000 return. See sec. 6015(c)(2), (3)(C). To the extent that
this is not so, it was petitioner’s burden to establish the
portion of the deficiency that was not allocable to her. See
sec. 6015(c); sec. 1.6015-3(d)(3), Income Tax Regs. (stating that
the electing spouse has the burden to establish the proper
4 The Court assumes that the payment of $2,713 has been or
will be credited to the joint liability.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008