§6015 — Relief from joint and several liability on joint return

447, superseded by Rev.

447, superseded by Rev.

risdictional; (3) the reasoning underlying our conclusion in Pollock in finding the provision jurisdictional does not hold up in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions, primarily Boechler; and (4) the three appellate opinions holding the section 6015(e)(1)(A) filing deadline jurisdictional are no longer good law after Boechler.

Held: Applying Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court overrules R’s hearsay objection.

447, superseded by Rev.

296, 298,7 modified and superseded by Rev.

296, 298,7 modified and superseded by Rev.

Section 6511(h) effectively overruled the result reached by the Supreme Court in Brockamp and allowed for equitable tolling of the section 6511 limitations period when taxpayers were unable to manage their financial affairs.

447, was superseded by Rev .

factor is 1 This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev.

447, was superseded by Rev .

Additionally, I am concerned"that today the Court, on the' pretext that a 2006 amendment to section 6015(e) provides an occasion to reconsider our prior rulings,z essentially overrules our longstanding precedent that this Court reviews the Commissioner's denial of section 6015(f) relief for abuse of discretion .

In the process, counsel asks us to make a categorical finding on an ambiguous factual record and to disregard or overrule prior opinions of the Court .

447, has been superseded by Rev.

447, was superseded by Rev .

On the basis of the issues petitioner raised in her administrative hearing, respondent's objections are overruled, and we consider the additional exhibits in our review of respondent's determination .

447, has been superseded by Rev.

447, was superseded by Rev .

447, was superseded by Rev .

447, was superseded by Rev .

447, was superseded by Rev .

447, was superseded by Rev .

447, was superseded by Rev.

447, was superseded by Rev.

We therefore overrule our holding in Ewing I in light of this subsequent precedent and now construe section 6015(e) as not giving us jurisdiction over nondeficiency stand-alone petitions.10 But if we now think the disputed phrase is not ambiguous, its effect still seems to us anomalous.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

at 448, lists threshold conditions which must be 3This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev.

at 448-449, lists nonexclusive factors that the Commissioner will consider in determining whether, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the requesting spouse liable for all or part of the unpaid income tax liability 2This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

We note, however, that this revenue procedure has been superseded by Rev.

2000-15, supra, has been superseded by Rev.

447.1 We have upheld 1 This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev.

That determination was overruled on review.

The reasons for our overruling respondent’s denial of relief regarding the section 6662(a) penalty applicable to the retirement distribution proceeds are as follows: Section 6662(a) does not apply to “any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was a reasonable cause for such portion and that the taxpayer acted in g

Unlike in proceedings for redetermination of a deficiency, a determination of an overpayment, or a determination concerning innocent spouse relief, in the whistleblower context the Tax 13 Section 6015(e)(7), titled “Standard and scope of review,” provides that “[a]ny review of a determination made under this section shall be reviewed de novo by the Tax Court and shall be based upon—(A) the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and (B) any additional newly discovered

Consequently, the section 6015(g)(2) exception does not apply, and the doctrine of res judicata bars her claim for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015.

Having found that petitioner is not eligible for relief under section 6015(b) (and section 6015(c) does not apply given her marital status), we turn our inquiry to whether it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the liabilities for the years at issue.

Petitioner states that “[a] future innocent spouse claim is similar to the carryback of net operating losses.” But unlike net operating loss carryovers not in issue when an offer is made and applied after a qualified offer is accepted to reduce payment for the years in issue, the right to relief from liability under section 6015 that petitioner reserved in her offer affects the amount of her liabilities—the assessed deficiencies—for the years in issue; it is not merely a carryover item applied l

6015(e)(7). See Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, sec. 1203(b), 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). Because petitioner filed her petition before July 1, 2019, sec. 6015(e)(7) does not apply to this case.

- 10 - [*10] Kruja that she is not precluded from raising a claim for reliefand that the doctrine ofresjudicata does not apply here.

We distinguished Robinette on the ground that "Congress chose not to use the word 'determine' or some derivation thereofin section 6330(d)". E at 120. In doing so, we implicitly acknowledged that, given the difference in statutoryterms, section 6015 can more readily than section 6330(d) be viewed as part and parcel ofthe statutory framework governing our traditional, pre-APA deficiencyjurisdiction.

273 (2015), we also specifically distinguished Ventrano v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 272, 280 (2001), because it was not a "stand alone" sec. 6015 case; the taxpayer in Ventrano invoked our jurisdiction to review her claim for sec.

"For purposes ofsection 6015(c), unlike for purposes ofsection 6015(b) and (f), equitable considerations * * * are ofno import." Cheshire v.

However, we think that Vetrano is distinguishable fromthe instant case. The taxpayer in Vetrano invoked the Court'sjurisdiction to review her claim for section 6015 reliefby raising that matter as an affirmative defense in a case based on a petition for redetermination ofa deficiency timely filed under section 6213.

Concerning the knowledge requirement, several Courts ofAppeals have distinguished between omitted income and erroneous deduction cases for purposes ofdetermining whether a putative innocent spouse "had no reason to know" ofthe understatement. See sec. 6015(b)(1)(C); Price v.

at 298, provides three conditions that ifmet will ordinarily qualify a requesting spouse for reliefunder section 6015(f) with respect to an underpayment ofa properly reported liability. This step is inapplicable to petitioner because she did not properly report the liability.

For this reason alone, section 6015(g)(2) does not apply to relieve Mr.

Unlike the statutes conferring tax refundjurisdiction (28 U.S.C. secs. 1346(a)(1) and 1491(a)(1)), the statute that confers "innocent spouse"jurisdiction on the Tax Court--section 6015(e)(1)(A)--provides: In addition to any otherremedyprovided by law, the individual may petition the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction) to determine the appropriate reliefavailable to the.individual under this section * * * [Emphasis added.] Moreover, section 6015(g)(1) provides tha

6015(a). A spouse may qualify for relieffrom liability under section 6015(b) or, ifeligible, may allocate liability under section 6015(c). A spouse may seek equitable reliefunder section 6015(f) ifreliefis not available under section 6015(b) or (c), which does not apply to an underpayment oftax.

Along with the 10% additional tax on the $7,000 distribution, petitioner continued to contest the allocation oftax liability with respect to the $8,475 distribution under section 6015(c) and the 10% additional tax thereon. We believe section 301.7430-5(h), Example (_2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., is distinguishable.

a 27 - We turn next to whether petitioners are liable before the application of section 6015 with respect to Ms. Crouse for their taxable year 2001 for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) and the accuracy-rel-ated penalty under section 6662 (a). Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax -for failure to file timely a return.22 The addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not to willful neglect.

Thus section:6015 is inapplicable Ñere.

Two-Year Period of Limitations Respondent initially asserted that the claim for relief under section 6015(f) was untimely. After trial but before release of this opinion, respondent conceded that the 2-year period of limitations under section 6015(f) does not apply.

Court of Federal Claims does not acquire jurisdiction over the tax liabilities for 2001 through 2005, section 6015(e) (3) does not apply here.

6015 is inapplicable--indeed, it .

- - 7 Discussion Respondent argues that res judicata as delineated in section 6015'(g)(2) bars petitioner from claiming relief from joint and several liability for 1996, 1997, and 1998 because the Court entered final decisions for those years . Respondent further argues that the exception to res judicata in section 6015(g)(2) does not apply because relief from joint and several liability was an issue in the consolidated cases and petitioner participated meaningfully therein .

By its terms, section 6015 applies only .if an individual has made a joint return . Sec . 6015(a)(1) . } Because petitioner filed no joint return for 2005, section 601 5 is inapplicable--indeed, it .isInot meaningful to speak of relief from joint and several liability for a year in which petitioner has no joint and several liability .

Unlike subsections (b) and (c) of section 6015, subsection (f) does not contain a 4 - requirement that relief must be sought within 2 years of the first collection activity .

- Prior Cases This case is distinguishable from other cases where spouses of individuals who invested in tax shelters were found eligible for relief .

6015(c)(3)(C) . Ms . Ross ran the day-to-day operations and was responsible for maintaining records with respect to the activity . She was'well aware of all of the facts, including the defective recordkeeping, that lead us to conclude, infra , the horse activity was not an activity for profit . Therefore, we hold that Ms . Ross' election under section 6015(c) does not apply to that part of the 6 deficiencies attributable to the horse activity .2 Respondent also argues that Ms .

The Court o ppeals' opinion in Robinette , a case brought under section 6 30, is distinguishable from the current case brought under sect i n 6015 .6 Whereas section 6015 provides that we "determine" whether the taxpayer is entitled to relief, section 6330(d) provi es for judicial review of the Commissioner's determination by a l owing the taxpayer to "appeal such determination to the Tax Cou t" and vesting the Tax Court with "jurisdiction wi

Respondent asserts that the amendment to former section 6015(e)(1) does not apply to the setting at hand because petitioner paid her 1996 Federal income tax before December 20, 2006, and thus on or after that date petitioner had no remaining unpaid tax for 1996 so as to trigger an application of the amendment .

14, 2005, this amendment does not apply here .

Yet the Appeals officer never requested any additional information from petitioner and, in contravention of section 6015(a), applied the community property laws of California and Idaho. See Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 290 n.8 (2001). Respondent’s own argument demonstrates the inadequacy of the procedures employed in this case. We conclude that Robinette is inapplicable to this case.

Second, section 6015(a) and (g), unlike ERISA, expressly preempts community property law. Sec. 6015(a) (section 6015 determinations are made “without regard to community property laws”), (g) (refunds are made “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122)”).

Both this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have defined culpable knowledge in an omitted income case, for purposes of section 6015(c)(3)(C), as the "actual and clear awareness" of the item, as distinguished from mere reason to know of the item . Cheshire v . Commissioner , supra at 337 n.26; Cook v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005-22 . While the taxpayer generally has the burden of proof, in order to preclude relief under section 6015(c) the Commissioner must carry the bur

In certain situations, however, a joint return filer can avoid such joint and several liability by qualifying for relief therefrom under section 6015.1 Section 6015 applies to any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998, and to any liability for tax arising on or before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as of such date. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(g), 112 Stat. 740. Section 6015 does not apply if the tax was paid in full on or

“Actual knowledge” for purposes of section 6015(c)(3)(C) is the actual and clear awareness of the item, as distinguished from mere reason to know of the item. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 337 n.26 (5th Cir. 2002), affg. 115 T.C. 183, 195 (2000); sec. 1.6015-3(c)(2)(iii), Income Tax Regs.2 The mere fact that information is available to a taxpayer concerning the source of income is insufficient to show actual knowledge of the item of omitted income.

451, 462-463 (2003), we held that a taxpayer was entitled to raise a claim for relief under section 6015 where a closing agreement under section 7121 was signed before the effective date of section 6015, and the tax liabilities assessed pursuant to the agreement remained unpaid as of the effective date. The instant case is distinguishable because it involves an offer in compromise under section 7122 - 11 - that was submitted and accepted after the effective date of section 6015.

Unlike the notices of deficiency in Rochelle and Smith, which notified the taxpayers of the 90-day period and the right to petition the Tax Court, the notice of offset in the present case did not give petitioner any information about her rights under section 6015.

(See § 1.6015-5(b)(5) relating to premature claims). [Emphasis added.] We fail to see why the same rationale does not apply to a closing agreement entered into before the effective date of section 6015.

Held: Unlike sec. 6015(e), I.R.C., sec.

6015(f), I.R.C. R denied P’s request for relief. P then filed a petition in this Court seeking a review of R’s determination and requesting (pursuant to sec. 6015(g), I.R.C.) a refund of her garnished wages and the overpayments of tax from 1992 and 1994-98. R asserts that even if P is entitled to relief under sec. 6015(f), I.R.C., sec. 6015, I.R.C., does not apply to the portion of the tax liability that was paid on or before July 22, 1998.

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule.4 Section 6015 applies to any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998, and to any liability for tax arising on or before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as of such date. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(g), 112 Stat. 740. Section 6015 does not apply if the tax was paid in full on or before July 22, 1998.

Commissioner, supra, are factually distinguishable from the setting at hand.8 Although it is true that both of those cases 7(...continued) text of the statute as a whole and the statutory scheme crafted by Congress for relief from joint liability.

However, we can find no compelling reason to distinguish the logic and reasoning of this Court in Neely v. Commissioner, supra. An entitlement to the statutory relief provided by section 6015 is no less a defense to respondent’s determination than the statutory relief provided by section 6501(a) in the Neely case.

Unlike a deficiency proceeding or a collection due-process proceeding, a proceeding under section 6015(e)(1)(A) is restricted to the issue of relief from joint liability for the individual electing such relief.

6015, I.R.C., has no application to, and does not govern, (1) the request of P’s former spouse for relief from joint and several liability under sec.

Additionally, unlike former section 6013(e), which encompassed only substantial understatements attributable to grossly erroneous items, new section 6015(b) encompasses any understatement.

We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts in the instant case 7 [*7] because we decide the issues by a preponderance of the evidence.

Nevertheless, we need not decide whether the “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence” standard governs, because we conclude that respondent prevails here under either standard, having shown by clear and convincing evidence that assets were transferred between Mr.

4 If section 6015(e)(7) applies, an issue we need not decide, our scope of review would be limited to “(A) the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and (B) any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.” The parties stipulated the administrative record, and the trial testimony 4 (2009), superseded in part

We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts in the instant cases because we decide the issues by a preponderance of the evidence.

We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts in the instant cases because we decide the issues by a preponderance of the evidence.

We need not decide this dispute to decide the sec.

Because there is no record ofthe filed 1999 tax return, it is unclear whether the seventh condition, that the tax liability be attributable to the nonrequesting spouse, was met.

Also, given our holding we need not decide whether Mr.

We need not decide whether under those circumstances that burden shifts to Mr.

Because petitioner has failed to satisfy the second condition under section 6015(b), we need not decide whether she satisfied the other two conditions under section 6015(b), i.e., whether she lacked the requisite knowledge ofthe understatement at the time she signed thejoint return and whether equity considerations favor her.

Arias separated in January 2012, so it is unclear whether Ms.

We also agree with respondentthat we need not decide whetherthere is a genuine dispute as to a material fact because interpreting thejudgment is irrelevant to this case.

However, we need not decide whether the burden of proofshifts to intervenor in the instant case because we decide the issue by a preponderance ofthe evidence.

Because we conclude that petitioner is entitled to reliefunder section 6015(c) and petitioner raised no other issues in his petition, we need not decide whether the Appeals Office otherwise erred in sustaining the filing ofthe NFTL.

Under section 6015(c)(3)(C) we look for "an actual and clear awareness (as opposed to reason to know) ofthe existence ofan item which 5Because ofthis finding, we need not decide whetherpetitioner and intervenor were legally separated at the time ofpetitioner's election.

6015(f) and therefore need not decide whether petitioner brought her claim for relief within-2 years of the first collection gctivity.

The Court need not decide who has the burden of proof under subsection (c) because both parties introduced evidence and we shall decide the issues by a preponderance of the evidence.

We are not convinced that Mr.

We need not decide whether petitioner satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) because, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances as required by subparagraph (D), we find that it would not be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiencies in tax.

We do not agree with Ms.

We disagree with petitioner.

(CCH) 1531, 1537 (2008), but we do not agree, and we do not read Notice 2012-8, supra, as proposing, that a nonrequesting spouse's alcohol_or drug addiction, by itself, constitutes abuse under sec.

Consequently, we disagree with respondent - 8 - that petitioner's section 6015(c) elgction is invalid because petitioner had actual knowledge of intervenor's ExamOne earnings.

1971), even though we disagree with it, se Pullins v.

For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with petitioner's contentions .

We do not agree, as explained more fully below.

The Court consults those same factors when reviewing the IRS's denial ofrelief(but is not confined to them).

We held in Ewing that, although we reviewed the Commissioner’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) for abuse of discretion, our review was not confined to the administrative record.

The default provisions ofthe APA likewise call for review confined to the administrative record since section 7623(b) was promulgated after the APA and fails to expressly provide for a different review process.

We held in Ewing that, although we reviewed the Commissioner’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) for abuse of discretion, our review was not confined to the administrative record.

We held in Ewing that, although we reviewed the Commissioner’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) for abuse of discretion, our review was not confined to the administrative record.

We held in Ewing that, although we reviewed the Commissioner’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) for abuse of discretion, our review was not confined to the administrative record.

We held in Ewing that, although we reviewed the Commissioner’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) for abuse of discretion, our review was not confined to the administrative record.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: Petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6015(e)(1) 1 of respondent’s determination with respect to her request for relief from joint and several liability (innocent spouse relief) under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2014 (years at issue) with respect to joint federal income tax returns that she filed with

Served 06/12/25 2 tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a).2 The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(c).

But when a taxpayer raises innocent-spouse relief during her CDP hearing, section 6015 requires a specific determination as to whether she is entitled to relief under that section.

Served 03/11/25 2 The sole issue before us is whether intervenor’s objections to petitioner’s entitlement to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(c) have any merit.

Pursuant to section 6015, a taxpayer may be relieved from liability if she satisfies certain requirements.

LaRosa submitted to the Commissioner Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, seeking relief pursuant to section 6015(f) for, among other things, the liabilities for the years in issue.5 The Commissioner responded to the request on January 24, 2020, stating that he could not process her Form 8857 “because [his] records show no amount is currently owed and no additional assessments for tax years 1981, 1982, and 198

Petitioners did not request any other collection alternative but requested relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (innocent spouse relief) for Mrs.

3 sections 6320 and 6330, innocent spouse determinations pursuant to section 6015, whistleblower award determinations pursuant to section 7623(b)(4), and interest abatement actions pursuant to section 6404(h).

Bryan was granted innocent spouse relief pursuant to section 6015 for the deficiencies, penalties, and additions to tax in the notice of deficiency for 2010 and 2011.

Soler, requesting relief from joint and several liability for tax years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), and (f).

Petitioner filed a timely petition for review invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1)(A),2 and her former spouse (intervenor) subsequently filed a notice of intervention pursuant to section 6015(e)(4) and Rule 325 opposing petitioner’s claim.

Section 6015 provides various ways in which a spouse can be relieved of the joint and several income tax liability that results from the filing of a joint return--commonly referred to as “innocent spouse relief”.

Over time Congress has expanded this Court’s jurisdiction beyond the redetermination of deficiencies to include the review of collection actions pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330, innocent spouse determinations pursuant to section 6015, and whistleblower award determinations pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).

Discussion Pursuant to section 6015(e),1 taxpayers may petition this Court to review the Commissioner’s final determination on innocent spouse relief, and we have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate relief.

Petitioner’s former spouse (intervenor) filed a notice of intervention in this action pursuant to section 6015(e)(4) and Rule 325.

Coggin filed a petition with this Court pursuant to section 6015(e), seeking review of the denial of her request for innocent spouse relief.11 Attached to the petition was a letter from the United States Department of Justice Tax Division (Tax Division) dated September 9, 2019, addressed to Michael J.

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a credit or refund of$2,500 with respect to the partial reliefgranted for tax year 2011 pursuant to section 6015(c).

Pursuant to section 6015(a) and (f), however, a taxpayer may seek relieffromjoint liability under section 6015(b), (c), and (f).

Pursuant to section 6015(a) and (f), however, a taxpayer may seek relieffromjoint liability under section 6015(b), (c), and (f).

We hold that she is not.

After concessions the sole SERVED Oct 23 2019 - 2 - [*2] issue for our consideration is whetherpetitioner wife is entitled to innocent spouse relieffor the years in issue pursuant to section 6015(b) or (f).

6015 requires granting a prepayment opportunityto challenge the penalties in this case.

Respondent denied the request in a notice ofdetermination, and petitioner timely filed a petition for review by this Court pursuant to section 6015(e).

Hence, on the basis ofthe record in this case, with regard to petitioner's eligibility for spousal reliefunder section 6015(f), we hold that assets were not fraudulently transferred between spouses (condition (4)).

SERVED Feb 26 2019 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1)¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that she is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several liabilityunder section 6015(f) for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 with respect to unpaid tax reported on thejoint Federal income tax returns she filed with her former spouse, Efigenio Co

Najle-Rahim filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, requesting relieffromjoint and several liability for each ofthe years at issue pursuant to section 6015.

We hold that Francel is not entitled to innocent-spouse relief.

(SRI); we hold that they do; (2) whether petitioners and their wholly owned entities are entitled to the following deductions: a charitable contribution deduction in 2005 for the transfer ofreal property, a worthless debt deduction relating to Reddy Lab (described W or a worthless debt or stock deduction relating

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that he is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015(b), (c), and (f) for 2010 and 2011 with respect to ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all

Levitz partial reliefpursuant to section 6015(b) with respect to the disallowed Schedule C items.

(SRI); we hold that they do; (2) whether petitioners and their wholly owned entities are entitled to the following deductions: a charitable contribution deduction in 2005 for the transfer ofreal property, a worthless debt deduction relating to Reddy Lab (described W or a worthless debt or stock deduction relating

(SRI); we hold that they do; (2) whether petitioners and their wholly owned entities are entitled to the following deductions: a charitable contribution deduction in 2005 for the transfer ofreal property, a worthless debt deduction relating to Reddy Lab (described W or a worthless debt or stock deduction relating

As we hold below, section 6015(b) and (c) reliefis not available to petitioner because thejoint tax liability in this case is not attributable to an understatement oftax.

(SRI); we hold that they do; (2) whether petitioners and their wholly owned entities are entitled to the following deductions: a charitable contribution deduction in 2005 for the transfer ofreal property, a worthless debt deduction relating to Reddy Lab (described W or a worthless debt or stock deduction relating

SERVED Oct 22 2018 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that he is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several liabilityunder section 6015(b), (c), or (f) for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2010 with respect to Federal income tax returns that hejointly filed with intervenor, his former spouse.

(SRI); we hold that they do; (2) whether petitioners and their wholly owned entities are entitled to the following deductions: a charitable contribution deduction in 2005 for the transfer ofreal property, a worthless debt deduction relating to Reddy Lab (described W or a worthless debt or stock deduction relating

Nelson pursuant to section 6015(d).

However, under certain circumstances, section 6015 provides relieffrom this general rule.

137 (applying section 6015(f) to provide equitable reliefand granting refund subject to limitations in section 6511).

We hold that she is not.

We hold that she is.

Smaaland cannot satisfy the requirements ofsection 6015(b)(1)(C), we hold that she is not entitled to reliefunder section 6015(b).

Considering the facts and circumstances in the record, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to "innocent spouse" reliefunder section 6015(f), and respondent's determination is sustained.

Under specific circumstances section 6015 provides relieffromjoint and several liability on ajoint return.

Weighing all the facts and circumstances, we hold that it is not inequitable for her to bejointly liable.

Section 6015 provides a spouse with three alternatives for relieffromjoint and several liability: (1) full or partial reliefunder subsection (b), (2) proportionate reliefunder subsection (c), and (3) ifreliefis not available under subsection (b) or (c), equitable reliefunder subsection (f).

Section 6015 provides three avenues for relieffrom that liability (often referred to as innocent spouse relief) to a taxpayerwho has filed a joint return: (1) section 6015(b) allows relieffor understatements oftax attributable to certain erroneous items on a return; (2) section 6015(c) provides relieffor a portion ofan

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION NEGA, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that he is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice an

Stackpool each requested, with respect to the 2009joint return, relieffromjoint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (commonly called innocent spouse relief) by filing a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.

Petitioner filed with the Court a timely petition for review ofrespondent's determination.2 Petitioner's former spouse, through a conservator, filed a timely notice ofintervention pursuant to section 6015(e)(4).

6013(d)(3), section 6015 provides for three types ofrelieffromjoint and several liability.

2009-227, and entered the appropriate decision, petitioner initiated two separate actions requesting relief from her 1995 Federal income tax liability pursuant to section 6015 (innocent 2The fourth case pertained to respondent's collection efforts for petitioner and Mr.

Therefore, we hold that SO Melcher did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the collection actions.

Therefore, we hold that SO Melcher did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the collection actions.

However, section 6015 provides relief fromjoint and several liability for spouses who meet the conditions ofsubsection (b), and it provides for equitable reliefin subsection (f) when the reliefprovided for in other subsections is not available.

We hold that it is not, and we will grant the Commissioner's motion.

2009-227, and entered the appropriate decision, petitioner initiated two separate actions requesting relief from her 1995 Federal income tax liability pursuant to section 6015 (innocent 2The fourth case pertained to respondent's collection efforts for petitioner and Mr.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge: This case arises from a petition for review pursuant to section 6015(e)¹ ofrespondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled to any ¹All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

We hold that she is.

However, section 6015 provides three avenues ofrelieffromjoint and several liability: (1) section 6015(b) permits reliefifthe requesting spouse establishes, inter alia, that in signing the return she "did not know, and had no reason to know" that there was an understatement oftax; (2) section 6015(c) allows a separated or divorc

For the reasons explained herein, we hold that Ms.

For the reasons explained herein, we hold that Ms.

Both the scope and standard ofour review in cases requesting relieffrom joint and several income tax liability are de novo.6 We hold that Ms.

We hold that the settlement officer did not; and (2) whether Mrs.

We hold that they are not; (2) whether petitioners have unreported Schedule C gross receipts or sales for the years at issue.

The sole question presented SERVED Oct 07 2015 - 2 - [*2] is whether he is eligible for such reliefunder section 6015(f).¹ We hold that he is not so entitled.

letter dated September 15, 2010, petitioner was advised that respondent was prepared to deny her Form 8857 claim because it was not timely filed.3 On May 14, 2012, following the Commissioner's decision to no longer apply the two-year limitation to requests for relieffromjoint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f), respondent granted petitioner partial "innocent spouse relief".

Pursuant to section 6015 petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's determination to deny her relieffromjoint and several liability for Federal income tax for 2010.

Intervenor, petitioner's former spouse, filed a timely notice ofintervention pursuant to section 6015(e)(4).

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's determinationthat she is not entitled to relieffromjoint and ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Proced

Threshold Conditions for Granting Relief The revenue procedure begins by establishing threshold requirements that must be satisfied before an equitable reliefrequest pursuant to 6015(f) maybe considered.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's determination that she is not entitled to relieffromjoint and i Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Proc

Section 6015 provides for relieffromjoint liability for spouses who meetthe conditions ofsubsection (b) and it provides for equitable reliefin subsection (f) when the reliefprovided in other subsections is not available.

We hold that petitioner is not.

Section 6015 provides for three types ofinnocent spouse relief: (1) full or apportioned reliefunder section 6015(b), (2) proportionatetax relieffor divorced or separated taxpayers under section 6015(c), and (3) equitable - 8 - [*8] reliefunder section 6015(f) when reliefis unavailable under either section 6015(b) or (c

Pursuant to section 6015(e)(4) and Rule 325, Intervenor filed a timely notice ofintervention in this case to oppose petitioner's request for relief.

Intervenor, petitioner's former spouse, filed a timely notice ofintervention pursuant to section 6015(e)(4).

Consequently, we hold that petitioner does not qualify for relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015(b).5 II.

We hold similarlythat under Rev.

As a result, we hold that Mrs.

We hold that they were promoters and cannot be relied upon in good faith; (8) whether Dr.

The issues for decision, relating to 2002, 2003, and 2004, are whether petitioners are liable for tax relating to underreported income; whether $$PNg;D MAR 2 5 2015 - 2 - [*2] petitioners are liable for section 6663(a)1 fraud, or section 6662(a) accuracy- related, penalties; and whetherPei Yi Mui, pursuant to section 6015, is entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability.

Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has issued revenue procedures to provide guidance for determining whether a taxpayer is entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability.

On December 1, 2009, respondent received petitioner's Forms 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, in which, pursuant to section 6015, she requested reliefrelating to the years in issue.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: In these consolidated cases, petitioner seeks our review, pursuant to section 6015(e)(1),1 ofrespondent's determination that she is not 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax (continued...) $ERVED MAY - 6 2013 - 2 - [*2] entitled to relieffromjoint and several l

We hold that petitioner is not.

As a result, we hold that Mrs.

However, section 6015 provides three avenues ofrelieffromjoint and several liability: (1) section 6015(b) permits reliefifthe requesting spouse establishes, inter alia, that in signing the return she "did not know, and had no reason to know" that there was an understatement oftax; (2) section 6015(c) allows a separated or divorc

n denyiiig her request for relieffromjoint and SEVED MAR 2 7 2012 -2- several liability under section 6015.1 The issue to be decided is whether petitioner is entitled to equitable relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015(f) for tax related to a-2000joint Federal income tax return.2 We hold she is not.

Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) with respect to any unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2006.

Held: We lackjurisdi tion under I.R.C. sec. 6330(d) to review the determination conce ing the collection actions because the petition was not filed withi 30 days ofthe determination as required by I.R.C.

On the other hand, section 6015 provides various means by which relief -5 - fromjoint and several liability is available to a spouse ifhe or she meets certain statutoryrequirements.

For reasons we explain later, we hold that: (cid:16)042 The Gaitans are not entitled to reduce the gross income from their clothing-export business by $134,575 for cost of goods sold (part 1(a) of the opinion).

This case is an action for determination ofrelieffromjoint and several liability on ajoint return commenced by petitioner pursuant to section 6015(e)(1) and Rules 320-325.

Section 6015 provides relieffrom liability for filers ofjoint returns under three subsections: (b), (c), and (f).

We hold that she is so entitled.

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(c).2 (...continued) the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Snyder requests relief from oint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (f) .

We hold that we will not.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: In these consolidated cases, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to section 6015 (f) from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 1998 and 2000.1 1Unless otherùise indicated, all section references are to (continued.

Colon argues that upon the filing of a joint petition, we are authorized to enter decisions - 11 - for separate amounts only if we decide a spouse is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 or if we decide one spouse is not liable for the fraud penalty.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief ftom joint and several liability under section 6015(f) for the portion of the underpayment attributable to intervenor's income for,2001.

We hold that neither does;3 (2) whether Mr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Petitioner Kathleen Haag seeks this Court' s review, pursuant to section 6015 (e) , I of the denial by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of he requests for relief from her liability for income taxes for eight taxable years, for which she filed joint returns with her husband.

We hold that petitioner is therefore entitled to equitable relief from the 1997 joint tax liability under section 6015 (f) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015, petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to deny relief from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 1997- 2000 under section 6015 (f) .1 Petitioner timely petitioned this 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for

MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: This case arises from a petition for review pursuant to section 6015(e)1 of respondent's denial of relief under section 6015 with respect to original petitioner Joan Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

We hold that she is to the extent stated herein.

petitioner has failed to meet the threshold conditions for consideration for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f).

However, pursuant to section 6015, a taxpayer may be relieved fron joint and several liability in certain circumstances.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: In these consolidated cases, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to section 6015 (f) from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 1998 and 2000.1 1Unless otherùise indicated, all section references are to (continued.

We hold he is not barred and further hold that he is entitled to relief under section 6015(b).

We hold that she is.

We hold he is barred from obtaining relief from joint and several liability.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief from joint,and several liability for 2002 under section 6015(f).

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to any relief from joint and - 25 - several liability under section 6015(c) from the.

On the basis of the foregoing; we hold that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of showing that she is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) for 2006 .

Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribed revenue procedure guidelines to help IRS employees determine whether a requesting spouse is entitled to relief from joint and several liability .

A taxpayer who does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) or-(c) can be relieved from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer w 5 - liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency .

Halloway determined that petitioner was ineligible for innocent spouse relie f pursuant to section 6015(f) .

The issues for decision are : (1) Whether petitioner's former husband's distributive share of the income of two pass through entities is includable in their joint income for the yea r issue, (2) whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint "and several liability pursuant to section 6015 if her former husband's distributive share of income is includable in their 'joint income, and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty imposed under the provisions of section 6662

Section 6015(f) Equitable Relie f Section 6015 provides relief from joint and several liability in certain circumstances .

Section 6015 provides three ways out of that-liability.

several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015 petitioner seeks relief from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 2001 and 2002.1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

To sum up these preliminary matters : We hold that we have jurisdiction to decide what relief Karen is entitled to under the Code, and we will make our decision on the basis of the evidence presented to us at trial, withoutldeferring to the findings of the Appeals officer who issued the notice of determination denying relief .

Pursuant to section 6015, petitioner made an administrative request for relief froin joint and several liability for Federal income taxes for 2001, 2002, and 2003.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNT.ON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015 petitioner seeks relief from joint .and several liability for unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 1998 and 2000 .

We hold that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015.

We hold that the determination was valid, and we shall.

Pursuant to section 6015(f), .the Commissioner has prescribed revenue procedure guidelines to help IRS employees determine 7 - whether a requesting spouse is entitled to relief from joint and several liability.

.Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribe d revenue procedure guidelines to help IRS employees deterjmine .whether a .

Section 6015 provides three ways out of this joint liability .

The regulations under section 6015 provide that pursuant to section 6015(e), the requesting spouse may petition the Court to review a denial of relief within 90 days after the Commissioner's final notice of determination .is mailed.

However, section 6015 provides that, notwithstanding section 6013(d)(3), a joint filer may elect to seek relief from joint and several tax liability .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6015(e),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination with respect to he r 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code .

Petitioner submitted to the IRS Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, dated April 26, 2004 ; Form 12510, Questionnaire for Requesting.Spouse, ;dated April 26, 2004 ; and an undated letter explaining her circumstances and the reasons she was entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015 .

She sought relief from, joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) .

However, section 6015 provides three avenues of relief from joint and several liability : (1) Section 6015(b) 15 - permits relief if the requesting-spouse establishes that in signing the return he "did not know, and had no reason to know" of the items that caused the understatem nt of tax ; (2) section 6015(c) allows a separate

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOLEY, Judge : The issue for decision is whether petitioner , pursuant to section 6015,1 * is entitled to innocent spouse relief 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section .

After careful review of all of the evidence we find that petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015, but only pursuant to section 6015(c), and only as agreed between her and respondent .

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(b) or, in the alternative, under section 6015(f) .

A taxpayer who does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) or (c) may be relieved from joint and several liability - 6 - pursuant to section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or ..deficiency .

.MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge : This case arises from a request for relie f pursuant to section 6015(f)' with respect to petitioner's join t 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times .

Relief From Joint and Several Liabili t Section 6015 applies to any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998, and to any liability for t ax arising on or before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as o such date .

6015(b) (1) (C) , (c)-(3) (C ) A taxpayer who does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b:) :, or (c) can be relieved from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge : Petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(b) and (f)1 with respect to petitioner's joint income tax liabilities for taxable years 1993, 1994, and 1995 .

6015 .` On or about March 26, 2002, petitioner filed Form 8857,,,-, Request for Innocent Spouse .Relief (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), do which,she'requested relief from joint" and several liability for the 1979-81 liabilities pursuant to section 6015 .

We hold that he is not .

Internal Revenue Code Section 6015 requires an innocent spouse claim to be filed no later than 2 years after the start of collection activity .

Accordingly, the Court reviews respondent's determination pursuant to section 6015(c) .

Section 6015 provides that an individual may seek relief from joint and several liability on a joint income tax return provided that individual meets the requirements of section 6015(b) or (c) .

Respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under Section 601 5 granting petitioner partial relief pursuant to section 6015(c) .

llenging the liabilities and raising a spousal defense at her CDP hearing as contemplated by section 6330 .9 Petitioner was represented by counsel who should have filed, or advised his client to file, either a request for a CDP hearing or a timely request for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f), notwithstanding the ambiguous language inviting taxpayers to "call us" .

To qualify for relief pursuant to section 6015(b)(1), the requesting spouse .must establish that : (1) A joint return was filed ; (2) there was an understatement of tax attributable to erroneous items of the nonrequesting spouse ; (3) at the time of signing the return, the spouse seeking relief did not know, and had no reason to know, of the un

- 3 - fraud penalty; and for 1992 she is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015.

On January 27, 2005, respondent's Appeals Office sent petitioner a notice of determination denying petitioner's request for relief pursuant to section 6015(f) for taxable years 1995 through 2001 .

The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(c) or section 6015(f) for the taxable years 2000 and 2002 .

Petitioner and respondent agree that petitioner's request for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(b) should be granted in full .

While section 6015 provides three avenues for relief from that liability to a taxpayer, the operative predicate before a request for such relief may be deemed appropriate is whether the requesting spouse filed a Joint return for the year in issue .

Section 6015 provides for relief from joint and several liability only in certain circumstances .

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief to a spouse from this general rule .

Although the parties attempted to draft a final closing agreement with regard to petitioner's tax liabilit y for 1999, the negotiations failed when petitioner requested that the closing agreement include language stating that petitioner was entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(c), which provides that taxpayers filing a joint return may seek an allocation of the tax liability associated with the return .

During the examination, petitioner's former spouse filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, and respondent granted his request pursuant to section 6015(c) .

Background On July 5, 2006, petitioner filed a petition with this Court for relief pursuant to section 6015 with regard to the taxable year 2003 .

However, section 6015 provides for relief for a requesting spouse from joint and several liability in certain circumstances .

Section 6015 provides relief from liability for filers of joint returns in some circumstances .

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule.6 A taxpayer may be considered for relief under section 6015(f) where there is an unpaid tax or deficiency for which relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c).7 Sec.

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule .

Relief Available Under Section 6015(f) Section 6015 provides relief from joint liability by providing the taxpayer with three avenues for obtaining relief: (1) Section 6015(b) provides full or apportioned relief with respect to understatements of tax attributable to certain erroneous items on the return; (2) section 6015(c) provides relief for a portion of a

This Court reviews the Commissioner's denial of relief pursuant to section 6015(f) under an abuse of discretion standard.

6 Considering the nature of the relief available under section 6015, we hold that the phrase "amount of relief sought" in section 7463(f)(1) encompasses the amount of paid and unpaid tax, interest, and penalties, including accrued but unassessed interest and penalties, for which relief is sought .

During her Appeals conference, petitioner requested relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (section 6015 relief) .

He did not proffer any spousal defenses pursuant to section 6015, challenge the appropriateness of the collection action, or offer any collection alternatives pursuant to section 6330(c)(2) .

Section 6015 provides relief from joint and several liability for certain taxpayers who file a joint Federal income tax return .

Accordingly, respondent agrees that petitioner is entitled to relief from liability for tax on $1,501, the difference between the actual income received ($5,503) and the income reported on the tax return ($4,002) pursuant to section 6015(c).

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint or several liability pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), or (f).

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from joint liability.

We hold that he did not.

The issue we must decide is whether petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), or (f) .

6015 applies to liabilities that arose “after July 22, 1998, and to liabilities that arose prior to July 22, 1998, that were not paid on or before July 22, 1998,” making petitioner eligible for relief under sec.

Consistent with the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is barred by section 6330(c)(4) from attempting to raise her claim for relief under section 6015 in this proceeding.

After concessions, the issue for decision is whether respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner relief from joint and several liability for the tax deficiency and accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6015.2 Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule.4 Section 6015 applies to any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998, and to any liability for tax arising on or before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as of such date.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015(f) and that respondent’s failure to grant that relief was an abuse of discretion.

Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has issued guidelines setting out threshold conditions that must be met .

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule.

Section 6015 applies to any tax liability from a joint return arising after July 22, 1998, or any tax liability arising on or before July 22, 1998, that remains unpaid as of such date.

essions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for the taxable year 2001; and if so, (2) whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the tax deficiency and accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6015.

We hold that he did.

Section 6015 provides three types of relief from joint and several liability: (1) Full or apportioned relief under section 6015(b) if, among other requirements, the requesting spouse “establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know, and had no reason to know” of an understatement of tax; (2) proportionate

Thus, we hold that respondent was not prohibited from filing the Federal tax lien in dispute under section 6015.

The Court subsequently granted the nonelecting spouse’s motion, stating: We hold that whenever, in the course of any proceeding before the Court, a taxpayer raises a claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015, and the other spouse (or former spouse) is not a party to the case, the Commissioner must serve notice of the claim on the other individual who filed the jo

section 362(a)(8) (2000) bars the filing of a petition with this Court in a so-called stand-alone proceeding brought pursuant to section 6015.

We hold that he did not.

In support of his claim for relief under section 6015(c), petitioner argues that pursuant to section 6015(d), all of the shareholder pro rata income attributable to CWS is allocable to Ms.

6015 applies to any liability for tax arising before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as of that date.

The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the deficiency and penalty pursuant to section 6015.

otion for Partial Summary Judgment and Respondent’s Notice of Objection and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1 The sole issue for decision is whether respondent’s application of petitioner’s overpayment, relating to 1998, as a credit against petitioner’s 1989 tax liability is, pursuant to section 6015, a collection action that bars petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several liability relating to 1989.

However, under certain circumstances, section 6015 provides that a spouse may be relieved from joint and several liability on a joint return.

We hold that it was not, but for a reason other than that advanced by respondent.

OPINION RUWE, Judge: This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for leave to amend petition pursuant to Rule 41(a).1 Petitioner timely filed her petition with this Court pursuant to section 6015(e) seeking relief from her previously assessed joint and several income tax liabilities for 1983 and 1All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at is

6651(a)(1) 1993 $5,362 $1,171 1994 686 – After concessions, the issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(c) for the 1993 deficiency and addition to tax.

6015 applies to any liability for tax arising before July 22, 1998, but remaining unpaid as of that date.

On March 27, 2001, respondent issued a notice of determination granting petitioner partial relief pursuant to section 6015(c).

The Court subsequently granted the nonelecting spouse’s motion, stating: We hold that whenever, in the course of any proceeding before the Court, a taxpayer raises a claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015, and the other spouse (or former spouse) is not a party to the case, the Commissioner must serve notice of the claim on the other individual who filed the jo

We hold that petitioner is liable for such additions.

We hold that petitioner is liable for such additions.

Freeman (intervenor) is the former spouse of petitioner and filed an intervention in this proceeding pursuant to section 6015(e)(4) objecting to the granting of relief to petitioner under section 6015.

Each party claims relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(b) and (c).

The Secretary has also developed Form 8857 for the making of a section 6015 election but has not issued any regulations pursuant to section 6015(g)(2).

Minihan filed with this Court a timely petition appealing the IRS’s denial of innocent spouse relief and asking this Court to determine the appropriate relief available to her under section 6015 — in particular, a refund of her share of the funds taken by the IRS from a joint bank account to satisfy the separate liability of her former husband, inter-venor John Minihan, for the joint income tax debt.

The Court of Appeals rejected the traditional method to address delay in the equity context because of subsections (b) and (c) of section 6015 and the 2-year limitations provision in those subsections, which it found supports the use of the 2-year standard for subsection (f).

urring opinions in Porter v. Commissioner, supra at 142-146, Judges Goeke and Wherry contended that our existing precedent with respect to the standard of review in section 6015(f) cases is no longer applicable in the light of the 2006 amendments to section 6015. Judge Wherry urged the Court to adopt a de novo standard of review when the merits of this case would be decided. Id. at 144. Congress enacted section 6015 as part of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pu

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Goeke, Judge: Petitioner brought this case under section 6015 seeking review of respondent’s denial of relief from joint income tax liability for 1999.

On April 4, 2005, respondent received from petitioner Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (and Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), in which she requested relief under section 6015 .1 On January 19, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of determination in which respondent denied her relief under section 6015 with respect to her taxable years 1997, 2000, and 2003 .

Billings began his case in our Court by filing a “nondefi-ciency stand-alone” petition — “nondeficiency” because the IRS accepted his amended return as filed and asserted no deficiency against him, and “stand-alone” because his claim for innocent spouse relief was made under section 6015 and not as part of a deficiency action or in response to an IRS decision to begin collecting his tax debt through liens or levies.

Linda does not appeal his denial of relief for tax years 1989 and 1994--there was neither an understatement nor an underpayment of taxes for those years, one of which must be present for her to qualify for relief under section 6015--but did petition the Tax Court for review of his denial of relief for 1990-93.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability with respect to unpaid tax - 2 - liabilities on certain joint returns filed with James S.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This is a case arising under section 6015.1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.

MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the 1993 taxable year.1 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 with respect to joint income tax returns that she filed with her former husband.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: Pursuant to the provisions of section 6015,1 petitioner applied for relief from joint and several liability for the 1996 taxable year by submitting a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, dated July 25, 1999.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge: Respondent moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015.1 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period under consideration, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

1 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: This case arises from a reduest for equitable relief under section 6015 (f)¹ with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1995.

In 1971, Congress enacted section 6013(e), the predecessor to section 6015, in order to correct perceived grave injustices often resulting from the imposition of joint and several liability.

In certain circumstances, however, a spouse who has filed a joint return may seek relief from joint and several liability under procedures set forth in section 6015. § 6015(a), (f). A requesting spouse may request relief from liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, may allocate liability according to provisions under section 6015(c). § 6015(a). If relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c), an individual may seek equitable relief under section 6015(f). In determining whether a

Relief Under Section 6015(f) Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint federal income tax return. § 6013(a). If a joint return is made, each spouse is generally jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due on their aggregate income for that year. § 6013(d)(3). Under section 6015(a) a spouse may seek relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, may allocate liability according to provisions set forth in section 6015(c). If a taxpayer does not

Duquette, however, are materially distinguishable from those of petitioners’ case. Petitioners are correct that in Norman E. Duquette a shareholder of a C corporation used an apartment instead of hotels for his business travels in order to reduce his expenses. In contrast to the facts of this case, the shareholder in Norman E. Duquette substantiated his expenses. Further, petitioners did not show that the condominium was a cost savings for SEI. They have pointed to no other authority supporting

In a final determination letter dated February 13, 2017, the IRS, acting pursuant to section 6015(f), granted Mrs. O’Nan partial relief from joint and several liability for 2012 and full relief for 2013. For tax year 2012 the IRS determined that Mrs. O’Nan remained liable for $3,340.4 The determination letter also fully denied Mrs. O’Nan’s claim for refund of the $123,200 IRS lien payment. In response Mrs. O’Nan timely filed a Petition with this Court, contesting the IRS’s determination that she

However, petitioner mistakenly conflates the grant of jurisdiction to review innocent spouse relief determinations in section 6015(e) with the conditions that she must satisfy to obtain such relief. “The predicates for our jurisdiction in a stand-alone proceeding under section 6015 are a claim by a taxpayer, a final determination, and a timely petition.” Gormeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-252, slip op. at 7. The filing of a joint return is a condition for relief under section 6015. § 6015

§ 6015(b) and (c), and that, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6015(g)(2), res judicata arising from the previous deficiency case does not bar her Petition because innocent spouse relief was not at issue in that case and because she did not meaningfully participate in that case. R opposed the motion and cross-moved, arguing that P did meaningfully participate in the previous deficiency case both in her own capacity and as a co-executor of H’s estate and that the I.R.C. § 6015(g)(2) exception to res judicata

But respondent now agrees, after review of additional supporting documentation, that petitioner is entitled to complete relief pursuant to section 6015(f). Intervenor timely filed a Motion to Intervene in this case and opposes any relief. OPINION I. Overview Married taxpayers may elect to file a joint federal income tax return. § 6013(a). If a joint return is made, generally each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due on their aggregate income for that year. § 6013(d)(3).

§ 6015 be- cause her TFRP liability did not arise from any liability shown on a joint Federal income tax return. Held, further, R did not abuse his discretion in sus- taining the collection action. ————— Angela M. Chavis, pro se. Catherine S. Tyson, for respondent. OPINION LAUBER, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case peti- tioner seeks review pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1) of the determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to uphold the filing of a

Under section 6015(a), a spouse may seek relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, may allocate liability according to provisions set forth in section 6015(c). If a taxpayer does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) or (c), the taxpayer may seek equitable relief under section 6015(f). A taxpayer may seek relief from joint and several liability by raising the matter as an affirmative defense in a petition for redetermination of a deficiency or, as in t

Section 6015 provides a spouse with three alternatives for relief from joint and several liability: full or partial relief under subsection (b), proportionate relief under subsection (c), and, if relief is not available under either subsection (b) or (c), equitable relief under subsection (f). Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she is entitled to section 6015 relief. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), aff’d,

As for 2008, the notice of determination comprised a determination to sustain the proposed levy and a final determination to deny petitioner section 6015 relief. Because petitioner filed a Petition contesting respondent’s denial of section 6015 relief within 90 days of the notice, we have jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1) to determine the appropriate relief available to petitioner for 2008. See Francel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-35, at *37–40 (reviewing the taxpayer’s innocent spouse c

A requesting spouse may be relieved from joint and several liability under section 6015 if certain conditions are met. Section 6015 provides a requesting spouse with three alternatives for relief from joint and several liability: (1) full or partial relief under subsection (b), (2) proportionate relief under subsection (c), or (3) if relief is not available under subsection (b) or (c), equitable relief under subsection (f). Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitioner, as the taxpaye

The Court applies a de novo scope and standard of review in deciding whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief under section 6015(f).6 See Wilson v. Commissioner, 705 F.3d 980, 993-994 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2010- 134; Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 210. The IRS has outlined procedures for determining whether a requesting spouse qualifies for equitable relief under section 6015(f) in Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.01, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, 399-400. Although the Court considers those pro

Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, a spouse who has made a joint return may seek relief from joint and several liability under - 7 - procedures set forth in section 6015. Section 6015 provides a spouse with three alternatives: (1) full or partial relief under subsection (b), (2) proportionate relief under subsection (c), and (3) if relief is not available under subsection (b) or (c), equitable relief under subsection (f). Petitioner does not contend that she is entitled to relief under

Section 6015(f) Section 6015(f) provides that “equitable relief” may be afforded to a tax- payer if “relief is not available to such individual under subsection (b) or (c).” “Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary” such relief may be available if, “taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either).” Sec. 6015(f)(1); see sec. 1.6015-4(a), Income Tax Regs. The Commissioner has s

James challenges the IRS’ denial of relief under section 6015, asserting that the tax examiner incorrectly concluded that section 6511 barred the refund of her 2014 overpayment. As explained below, we will not reach the merits of Ms. James’ argument because she is not entitled to relief under section 6015. A. Innocent Spouse Framework Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the election, each spouse becomes jointly and severall

Ifthe -18- [*18] disputed tax liability involves nonpayment oftax shown on ajoint return, the only reliefavailable is under section 6015(f), which is the case here. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003). When taxpayers request reliefunder section 6015(f), equitable relieffromjoint and several liability is appropriate if"taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion

6015(e)(7) and (f)(2). I.R.C. sec. 6015(e)(7) limits this Court's review ofthe determination in cases such as this to "(A) the administrative record established at the time ofthe determination, and (B) any newly discovered or pre- viously unavailable evidence." Congress specified that the amend- ments effected by Act sec. 1203(b) "shall apply to petitions or re- quests filed or pending on or after the date ofthe enactment ofthis Act," July 1, 2019. On November 11, 2019, P filed a motion to reman

Therefore, petitioner is entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015(c) for 2011.7 II. ReliefUnder Section 6015(f) for 2012 Section 6015(f) grants the Commissioner discretion to relieve an individual fromjoint and several liability where reliefis not available under section 6015(b) or (c) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency. Section 6015(b) and (c) applies only in the ca

-11- [*11] In sum, petitioner is not entitled to section 6015(b) relieffor the adjustments to the Schedule E because she fails the attribution requirement. Neither is petitioner entitled to section 6015(b) relieffrom the adjustments to intervenor's Schedule C because she has failed to prove that she should not have reasonably understood those items. B. Section 6015(c) Relief Section 6015(c) allows a qualifying requesting spouse who is no longer married to the person with whom thejoint return was

turn or found to be owing. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, a spouse who has made ajoint return may seek relieffromjoint and several liability under procedures set forth in section 6015. Sec. 6015(a). Section 6015 provides a spouse with three alternatives: (1) full or partial reliefunder subsection (b), (2) proportionate reliefunder subsection (c), and (3) ifreliefis not available under subsection (b) or (c), equitable

. . . . . . . . . . . 81 1. Section6015(b). ................................... 82 2. Section6015(c).....................................82 3. Section6015(f)..................................... 86 B. Whether Ms. Fausett Is Eligible for ReliefUnder Section 6015.. . . 89 1. Section6015(c)Relief. .............................. 89 a. Actual Knowledge............................. 90 i. 1999................................... 90 ii. 2000...................................91 iii. 2001.................

And against this backdrop, together with the prescribed manner for requesting section 6015 relief, it is apparent that the words "filed" and "made" in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) are used interchangeably. See sec. 1.6015-5(a), Income Tax Regs.° We thus consider these words to have equivalent effect and hold that section 7502 applies to the word "made" in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) in the same way as it applies to the word "filed". Because petitioner's Form 8857 relates to her 2011 taxable yea

. . . . . . . . . . . 81 1. Section6015(b). ................................... 82 2. Section6015(c).....................................82 3. Section6015(f)..................................... 86 B. Whether Ms. Fausett Is Eligible for ReliefUnder Section 6015.. . . 89 1. Section6015(c)Relief. .............................. 89 a. Actual Knowledge............................. 90 i. 1999................................... 90 ii. 2000...................................91 iii. 2001.................

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Ruwe, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a final determination denying petitioner relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (section 6015 relief).

- 20 - is entitled to partial reliefpursuantto section 6015(f) for 2009 for the portion of the tax liability attributable to intervenor's unreported income. 2. Partial Relieffor Portion ofTax Deficiency Attributable to Unreported Income ofRequesting Spouse As stated above, respondent contends that petitioner fails the seventh threshold requirement (namely, that the tax liability from which the requesting spouse seeks reliefis attributable to an item ofthe nonrequesting spouse) set forth in Rev.

Petitioner petitioned the Court under section 6015(e)(1) in response to a notice ofdetermination denying her request for relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 for 2009.

at 195 (the knowledge standard for purpose ofsection 6015(c)(3)(C) is an actual and clear awareness ofthe existence ofthe item giving rise to the deficiency). In the case ofomitted income, knowledge ofthe item includes knowledge ofthe receipt ofthe income. Sec. 1.6015-3(c)(2)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner had actual knowledge ofthe receipt ofher unemployment compensation. The record does not reflect where the refund check that included interest was deposited. Respondent has not offered any

A "disqualified asset" is defined in section 6015(c)(4)(B)(i) as "any property or right to propertytransferredto an individual making the election under this subsection with respect to ajoint return by the other individual filing such joint return ifthe principal purpose ofthe transferwas the avoidance oftax or payment oftax."7 7Sec. 6015(c)(4)(B)(ii) states that "any transferwhich is made afterthe date which is 1 year before the date on which the first letter ofproposed deficiency which allows

2003-61, supra, lists factors the Commissioner uses in deciding whetherto grant section 6015(f) relief. The Court may consider these guidelines but is not bound by them. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra, provides a three-step analysis to follow in evaluating a request for relief. The first step includes seven threshold conditions that must be met to request equitable reliefunder section 6015(f). Respondent concedes that petitioner meets the threshold requirements ofNotice 2012-8, 2012-4 I.R.B. 309, whi

However, section 6015 provides several means for a taxpayer to seek relief from joint liability; and if the IRS determines not to grant such relief to a taxpayer, section 6015(e) gives this Court jurisdiction to review that determination.

These four conditions a¼e imposed by section 6015 (b) (1) (A) , (B) , (C) , and (D) , respectively. George R. Ward has failed to demonstrate that the condition imposed by section 6015(b) (1) (B) is met; i.e., that there is "a understatement of tax attributable to erroneous items" of the other filer. Section 1. 6015-1 (h) (4 ) , Income Tax Regs . , provides : An erroneous item is any item resulting in an understatement or deficiency in tax to the extent that such item is omitted from, or improper

0 Several Liability under Section 6015 ( notice of determination) for tax years 1992 through 1997 . The accompanying Appeals Office. memorandum stated that the Appeals officer believed petitioner had submitted joint returns for all years . The notice of determination denied petitioner ' s appeal for relief under section 6015 and listed the joint liabilities as follows : Amount of Amount of Tax Tax Period Relief Requested Remaining 1992 $93,232 $93,232 1993 17,894 17,894 1994 26,541 26,54 1 1995

6015(f); sec. 1.6015-4(a), Income Tax Regs. We begin with the standard of review and the burden of proof. Respondent urges us to review the case for abuse of discretion. To do so, however, would be to reject our previous holding that the standard of review is de novo. Porter v. Commissioner, 132 I T.C. 203 (2009). A trial de novo requires independent judicial determination of the issues in the case.. See, e.g., Morris v. Rumsfeld, 420 F.3d 287, 292, 294 (3d Cir. 2005); Timmons v. White, 314 F.3d

Section 6015(c) Under section 6015(c), if the requesting spouse is no longer married to or is legally separated from the spouse with whom she filed the joint return, the requesting spouse may elect to limit ,,her liability for a deficiency as provided in section 6015(d) . Sec . 6015(c)(1), (3) (A) (i) (I) In this case, section 6015(c) is available, if at .all, only for the : liabilities attributable to the deficiencies in tax for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years . Respondent concedes that Ms .

election under section 6015(c) because she could not have raised it in the consolidated cases. I. Section 6015(g)(2) Section 6015(g)(2) codifies the application of res judicata with respect to claims for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. A. Res Judicata in General Under the judicial doctrine of res judicata, when a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the action are bound by every matter that was or c

85 (2004), that the Tax Court's scope of review in a .collection due process,(CDP) proceeding under sections 6320 and 6330 shoul d r -9- be limited to the administrative record .4 'However, the CDP provisions of sections 6320 and 6330 are different from the "innocent spouse" provisions of section 6015, and those differences include the following : The CDP petitioner's' agency-level remedies are described a t some length-in section''6330(a), (b), and (c), and section 6330(d)(2) requires the CDP

Thus, because petitioner knew or should have known of the understatement of tax, she does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) . The Court has considered all relevant evidence in making its determination . Section 6015(c ) Under section 6015(c), a divorced or separated spouse may seek to limit liability for a deficiency on a joint return to th e .portion allocable to him or her . In this case, respondent concedes that certain prerequisites for relief have been met . However, respondent a

Threshold Factors under IRC Section 6015(f ) A joint return was filed . IRC Sections 6015(b) and (c) are not avail- able . There was a timely application for relief . There is no evidence of fraudulent transfers of assets . _ There is no evidence of disqualified assets transferred. There is no. evidence . a . fraudulent joint re- turn presented. The taxis attributable to,the non-requesting spouse . Exceptions : Attribution is solely due to. community property rules Ownership of income is in name

s) against them. It is from this debt that Pollock seeks relief. That liability is hers because the Code makes spouses who sign a joint return jointly and severally liable for any tax due. Sec. 6013(d)(3). But relief is available in some cases under section 6015. And one way for a spouse to win relief under that section is to show that, “taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold [her] liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either).” Se

Respondent concedes that petitioner meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (E) of section 6015(b)(1). However, he argues that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (B), (C), or (D) of section 6015(b)(1). 1. Section 6015(b)(1)(B) Section 6015(b)(1)(B) requires that the tax returns in issue contain an understatement of income tax attributable to the nonrequesting spouse. The parties agree that the understatements of income tax arose from the disallowance

Only section 6015(f) applies as this case involves an underpayment of taxes shown on a joint return for 1993 .9 The Commissioner has the discretion to relieve the spouse or former spouse of joint liability if, taking into account all ,the fact s and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold that spouse liable for any deficiency or unpaid tax . Sec . 6015(f) ; sec . 1 .6015- 4(a), Income Tax Regs . We begin with whether we have jurisdiction . This Court has jurisdiction to determine whether sectio

Even under the former, stronger weighting, we have granted relief where we found that "'the factors in favor of equitable relief are - 26 - unusually strong, it may be appropriate to grant relief under section 6015(f) in limited situations where the requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the liability would not be paid'" . Washington v . Commissioner, 120 T .C . at 151 . 4 . Legal Obligation This factor comes into effect only when "the nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation to p

The Applicability of the APA Judicial Review Provisions to Tax Court Proceedings Under Section 6015 Since its enactment in 1946 the APA has generally not governed proceedings in this Court (or in its predecessor, the Board of Tax Appeals).

In certain circumstances a spouse may obtain relief under section 6015 from such liability.

6015 (c)(3)(C) . Respondent must demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence that petitioner had "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)" . Cheshire v . Commissioner, supra at 195 ; Charlton v . Commissioner , 114 T.C. at 341-342 . As discussed above, we have found that petitioner had actual knowledge of the IRA distribution . Therefore, petitioner is not eligible for relief under section 6

Exception From Res Judicata Absent an exception from res judicata, petitioner is barred under section 6015(g)(2) from seeking relief under subsection. (c) in this proceeding . Petitioner's counsel cites Smaczniak v . Commissioner, 998 F .2d 238 (5th Cir . 1993), revg . T .C . Memo . 1991-87, arguing that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on "common sense" to craft an exception to ameliorate the strict application of res judicata . This case is not bound by the law of the Fifth Ci

o assert a claim for innocent spouse relief. Held, further, R was not substantially justified in continuing to oppose P-Wife’s claim for relief after - 2 - receiving a recommendation that P-Wife be granted relief from R’s office that specializes in sec. 6015, I.R.C., cases. Held, further, P-Wife submitted a qualified offer under sec. 7430(c)(4)(E) and (g), I.R.C., during the qualified offer period, and P-Wife’s liability was determined to be less than if R had accepted the qualified offer. Held,

The issues remaining for our consideration are (1) whether this case is ripe for summary judgment; and (2) whether petitioner is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking section 6015 relief, or more particularly, whether she "meaningfully participated" in two prior Tax Court proceedings which resolved her tax liabilities for the 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1997 tax years .

The restrictions on collection action while a claim for relief under I .R .C . § 6015 is pending with this Court, imposed by I .R .C . § 6015(e)(1)(B) (as in effect at the time of the levy), only apply to requests for relief under I .R .C . § 6015(b) or (c) . Because petitioner was requesting relief pursuant to I .R .C. § 6015(f), responde

o assert a claim for innocent spouse relief. Held, further, R was not substantially justified in continuing to oppose P-Wife’s claim for relief after - 2 - receiving a recommendation that P-Wife be granted relief from R’s office that specializes in sec. 6015, I.R.C., cases. Held, further, P-Wife submitted a qualified offer under sec. 7430(c)(4)(E) and (g), I.R.C., during the qualified offer period, and P-Wife’s liability was determined to be less than if R had accepted the qualified offer. Held,

On July 26, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015 (notice of determination).

the return, were you aware there was a balance due IRS? Please explain in detail. No, I was not aware of any balance due because I was not afforded the opportunity to review the return. 3In petitioner’s Form 8857, petitioner also sought relief under sec. 6015 with respect to taxable year 1997 in which Mr. Simon received a retirement plan distribution of $47,632.36 from Roadway Express Savings Plan (Mr. Simon’s 1997 retirement plan distribution). The IRS granted petitioner partial relief with res

ollection of the liability. The IRM, together with sections 301.6159-1, 301.6320-1, and 301.6330-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., establishes the IRS procedures for 3Lois Etkin received a notice of determination in response to her request for relief under sec. 6015 and was notified that she could petition a stand-alone sec. 6015 case under sec. 6015(e). See sec. 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-15, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Lois Etkin did not file such a petition. Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over the sec. 60

6015(d), I.R.C., does not limit the portion of the deficiency properly allocable to W to the amount of tax W would have owed had she filed a separate return. 3. Held, further, sec. 6015(d), I.R.C., does not limit the portion of the deficiency properly allocable to W to W’s proportionate share of the taxable income properly reported on the joint return. 4. Held, further, the erroneous items attributable to W are allocable to W under sec. 6015(d), I.R.C., to the extent of W’s taxable income proper

nue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. - 2 - was not entitled to any relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review of respondent’s determination. The issue for decision is whether respondent’s denial of relief under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have be

ollection of the liability. The IRM, together with sections 301.6159-1, 301.6320-1, and 301.6330-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., establishes the IRS procedures for 3Lois Etkin received a notice of determination in response to her request for relief under sec. 6015 and was notified that she could petition a stand-alone sec. 6015 case under sec. 6015(e). See sec. 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-15, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Lois Etkin did not file such a petition. Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over the sec. 60

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: This case arises from petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for 1992.1 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GERBER, Chief Judge: This case arises from petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for 1979, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, - 2 - and 1999.1 The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015(b) or (c) with respect to 1979; and (2) whether respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner relief under section 6015(f) with respect to each of petitione

ondent offset against petitioner’s tax liability for 1988 on Mar. 12, 2001, and Sept. 17, 2001, respectively. Respondent based this concession on his administrative practice/policy of refraining from offsetting overpayments during the pendency of a sec. 6015 relief request. Apart from accepting respondent’s concession, we make no findings regarding the refund of these amounts. - 3 - On October 2, 2000, petitioner submitted to respondent a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Petitioner

Section 6015 provides three alternative grounds for granting relief from joint and several liability. First, section 6015(b) provides for traditional relief from joint and several liability for a tax deficiency following the model of former section 6013(e). Second, section 6015(c) provides for an allocation of liability for a tax deficiency. Finall

Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability On or about July 17, 2000, petitioner mailed respondent a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (and Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief).5 Betty Sneed and Bonnie Halbert were assigned to review petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief.

Proc.) 2000-15 As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribed procedures to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies for relief from joint and several liability on equitable grounds. Those procedures are set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. This Court has upheld the use of those procedures in reviewing a negative determination. See Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 147; Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 125. Section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15 lists seven conditions

support her children. 1(...continued) Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 2 In her petition, petitioner sought relief pursuant to sec. 6015(b) and (f). Accordingly, sec. 6015(c) is not in issue. On brief, petitioner argues that she is entitled to sec. 6015 relief for 1981. In her petition, petitioner did not raise her 1981 tax year; in her request for sec. 6015 relief, petitioner did not raise her 1981 tax year; and, in the notice of determination, respondent did not make a determination rega

result, a taxpayer is entitled to relief from joint liability under section 6015(f) if the Court determines that, taking into account all the facts and - 8 - circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency and relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c). The Court reviews the Commissioner’s denial of relief after a trial de novo under an abuse of discretion standard. Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. ___ (2004). Petitioner contends that h

ion (b) or (c) apply-- (A) In general.--In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the individual may petition the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction) to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under this section if such petition is filed– - 9 - section 6015(b) or (c) apply may petition this Court “to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual” under section 6015, including relief under section 6015(f). Fernandez v. Commissioner, 11

ef (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), with respect to the taxable year 1993. Petitioner attached to Form 8857 a copy of his and Ms. Pena’s divorce decree upon which decree he claims that he is entitled to relief from liability under section 6015. On June 19, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a final notice of determination denying petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015(b), (c), and (f). Petitioner timely filed with the Court a petition for determination of relief f

espondent determined that petitioner was 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - not entitled to any relief under section 6015. Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review of respondent’s determination. After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief, in addition to that conceded by respondent, under section 6015(b), (

o returns due after Dec. 31, 1989. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 1989), Pub. L. 101-239, sec. 7721(b), (d), 103 Stat. 2399, 2400. 3Respondent treated petitioner's first Amendment to Petition as petitioner's request for relief under sec. 6015, and respondent's Appeals Office subsequently denied petitioner relief. ~ 4 - decision in this case are, with respect to petitioner alone: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the section 6653 addition to tax for negligence in each year in

C. Petitioner’s Request for Relief From Joint Liability for 1983-84 On March 15, 1999, petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, for tax years 1981-84. In the Form 8857, petitioner requested relief from joint liability under section 6015. She included a request for refund of tax paid for 1983-84 relating to Robotics. By letter dated December 3, 1999, respondent’s District Director told petitioner that she was entitled to relief under - 7 - section 6015(c) for all amounts

question were the results of an audit of our tax return. On September 12, 2002, in response to petitioner’s Form 8857, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of determination. In that notice, respondent denied petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015. The liability for each of the taxable years 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 is from the assessment that respondent made for each such year based upon the stipulated decision in the case for the taxable years at issue. The liability for the t

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This case arises from a request for relief under section 6015¹ with respect to petitioner's 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986 taxable years.

447, 449, when inadequate notice of collection activity was sent to her, and, as a result, she did not become aware of her section 6015 rights until after the 2-year period expired.

e Secretary to prescribe procedures under which, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, the Secretary may determine that it is inequitable to hold an individual jointly liable for tax. Section 6015(e)(1)(A) provides our jurisdiction in section 6015 cases. Section 6015(e)(1)(A) provides that a taxpayer against whom a deficiency has been asserted and who elects to have section 6015(b) or (c) apply may petition this Court “to determine the appropriate relief available to the individua

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Goeke, Judge: This matter is before the Court on the issue of whether petitioner is barred from seeking relief from joint and several liability under former section 6013(e) and section 6015 for the years 1986 and 1987 because he entered into an offer in compromise with respondent for those years.

Respondent bears the burden of proving that the taxpayer requesting section 6015(c) relief had the relevant actual knowledge. Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C); King v. Commissioner, supra at 204.5 With respect to the disallowed rental loss deductions, petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(c). As discussed above, petitioner was fully aware of all the underlying factual circumstances concerning the rental of the condominium unit to her own daughter. See King v.

- 9 - Respondent treated petitioner's request for relief as an election under section 6015(f) and determined that petitioner was not entitled to the requested relief. Section 6015(e)(1) allows a taxpayer whose request for relief is denied by respondent to petition this Court for a review of such determination. Our jurisdiction in cases brought under section 6015(e)(1) encompasses a review of respondent's determination with respect to all relief afforded by section 6015. Ewing v. Commissioner, 11

Respondent mailed each petitioner a notice of deficiency for 1995 and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (notice of determination).

Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015 provides relief from this general rule.

Respondent mailed each petitioner a notice of deficiency for 1995 and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (notice of determination).

T.C. Memo. 2003-188 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MARY CATHERINE PIERCE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 8557-01. Filed June 30, 2003. P seeks relief, under sec. 6015, I.R.C., from income tax liabilities that were assessed in accord with this Court’s holding in an earlier opinion. In this proceeding, P failed to plead, as an affirmative defense, collateral estoppel as to one of the factual issues in controversy, as required in Rule 39 of this Court’s Rules of Prac

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1999 with respect to a joint return filed with Steven F.

Petitioner stated in an attachment to Form 8857 that Code Section 6015 contains significant provisions designed to protect married taxpayers from the misdeeds of their spouses.

Petitioner’s Request for Relief From Joint Liability for Tax Under Section 6015 On or about June 29, 1999, respondent received from petitioner multiple Forms 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, in which she sought relief from joint liability for the years 1995 through 1998.

--- MAJORITY --- RUWE, Judge: The issue for decision is whether a closing agreement entered into under section 7121 precludes the assertion of a claim for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 where petitioner signed the closing agreement before the effective date of section 6015.

451 (2003), we held that petitioner is not precluded by the closing agreement, which was entered into before the enactment of section 6015, or the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from claiming relief under section 6015 with respect to the tax liabilities attributable to the disallowance of deductions related to the Far West Drilling partnership.

Zhadanov is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for 1990, 1991, and 1992.5 4The Zhadanovs claimed that Form 872, Consent to Extend Time to Assess Tax, extending the period of limitations to Dec.

801 1994 May 20, 1996 1,196 1996 Apr. 21, 1997 2,507 1997 May 18, 1998 3,054 The Browns’ 1988 tax liability was paid in full on May 18, 1998. OPINION Petitioner contends that she is entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1988 under section 6015. We disagree. Section 6015 does not apply to any liability for tax arising before July 22, 1998, except to the extent it remained unpaid as of that date. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub. L. 105-206

Zhadanov is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for 1990, 1991, and 1992.5 4The Zhadanovs claimed that Form 872, Consent to Extend Time to Assess Tax, extending the period of limitations to Dec.

June 25, 1993, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner and Mr. Rowe for their taxable years 1987, 1988, and 1989. On August 18, 1994, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner and Mr. Rowe for their taxable 1References to sec. 6015 are to that section as added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201, 112 Stat. 734. References to sec. 7430 are to that section as in effect at the time

After a concession by petitioner, this Court must decide whether petitioner is entitled to relief from liability under section 6015 with respect to the income tax deficiency and the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1994 with respect to a joint return filed with Steven Trent (S.

On October 31, 2000, respondent mailed a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under Internal Revenue Code section 6015 (notice of determination).

§6015(c)(3)(A)(i) (I), Mrs. Vetrano is "legally separated from" Mr. Vetrano. * * * * * * * Petitioner based her eligibility upon being legally separated from Michael Vetrano. §6015(c)(3)(A)(i)(I). However, the mere filing of a divorce petition does not constitute legal separation. See Morrison v. Morrison, 122 N.J. Super. 277, 300 [sic]; 290 [sic] A.2d 741 [sic] (Ch. 1972). Nor has she supplied any evidence to support the statement in the brief that she was so legally separated. For that reason,

farming activity; and (5) charitable contribution deductions. Additionally, we must decide whether petitioner Donna A. Rowe is 1(...continued) sec. 6663 for the taxable year 1989, relate only to petitioner John A. Rowe. 2See appendix. 3References to sec. 6015 are to that section as added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201, 112 Stat. 734. Unless otherwise indicated, all other section references are to the I

- 11 - Section 6015 was given retroactive effect with respect to any liability for tax remaining unpaid as of July 22, 1998. See id. sec. 3201(g)(1), 112 Stat. 740. To the extent that the relief petitioner requested relates to taxes that had not been paid as of that date,5 section 6015 is applicable. Section 6015 contains three alternative grounds for relief from joint and several liability. First, section 6015(b) provides for traditional relief from joint and several liability following the mod

To the extent that the relief petitioner requested relates to taxes that had not been paid as of that date, section 6015 is applicable.

Vetrano’s claim for relief from joint and several liability under former section 6013(e) and section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code.

asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction with regard to that claim. Petitioners opposed that motion. Respondent responded stating in part: “After a diligent search of our records, respondent has determined that no claim or election for relief under I.R.C. § 6015 (b) or (c) was filed by petitioner Ms. Clark, f.k.a. Dorothy E. Wenner, with the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with normal procedures.” Discussion This is a matter of first impression. The issue we must decide is whether we hav

--- OPINION Ruwe, Judge: The matter before the Court is a motion for leave to file notice of intervention (embodying notice of intervention) by Curtis T. Freeman (Mr. Freeman) with respect to petitioner’s claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015. Background Mr. Freeman was previously married to petitioner, and he and petitioner filed a joint return for 1993, which is the year in issue. Although Mr. Freeman is not a petitioner in this case, he objects to petitioner’s claim for re

The parties agreed to waive any right to a new trial for the purpose of section 6015 and concede that the issues that were tried pursuant to section 6013(e) are the same issues the Court should decide pursuant to section 6015(b)(1) except, however, that petitioner contends that she is entitled to reopen the record for the Court to receive evidence as to petitioner’s entitlement to proportionate relief pursuant to secti

Halbert) was assigned to review petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief.

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is eligible for relief under section 6015 for any of the years 1989 through 1994.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1996 and 1997 with respect to joint returns filed with his former spouse, Lauren Trevino (Ms.

--- MAJORITY --- Vasquez, Judge: This case arises from a request for relief under section 6015 with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1982 to 1989 (years at issue).

embezzlement income and gain from liquidation of corporation, both items attributable to H. R also determined a sec. 6661, I.R.C., addition to tax for substantial understatement of income. P challenges deficiency and asks relief from liability under sec. 6015, I.R.C., as a so-called innocent spouse. 1. Held: P and H omitted from income embezzlement income and gain (in a reduced amount) of H. 2. Held, further, P has failed to show error in. the determination of sec. 6661, I.R.C., addition to tax

mount of the tax liability shown or required to be shown on the return. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). If certain requirements are met, however, an individual may seek relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. Petitioner seeks equitable relief under section 6015(f). Section 6015(e)(1)(A) provides that in the case of an individual who requests equitable relief under section 6015(f), this Court has jurisdiction to determine the appropriate reli

Subsection (c) of section 6015 provides an opportunity to limit liability, as follows: SEC.

He instead filed a petition on her behalf asserting that she was an “innocent spouse” under section 6015, apparently recognizing that he was solely responsible for the profits he had accumulated over the years and that it was only fair that he should be solely responsible for any large tax bill that might result.

Di Giorgio asserted that she is entitled to innocent spouse relief under section 6015.1 The Commissioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

Section 6015 provides a regime for ajoint filer to seek relieffrom thatjoint and several liability. Mrs. Rogers seeks reliefunder subsections (b) and (f). The pertinent provisions ofsection 6015(b)(1) are: (B) on such return there is an understatement oftax attributable to erroneous items ofone individual filing thejoint return; - 14 - [*14] (C) t

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: This case arises from petitioner's request for section 6015 relieffromjoint and several liability for Federal income tax for taxable (calendar) years 2008 and 2010 (years in issue).

The issues for consideration are: (1) whether petitioner Frances Rogers can challenge respondent's noncompliance with section 6751(b) in her claim for relief fromjoint and several liability under section 6015 (innocent spouse relief); we hold she may not; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for accuracy-related penalties under sections 6662(a) and (h) and 6662A; we hold them liable to the extent stated herein.

This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review ofthe Office ofAppeals' final determination that petitioner is not entitled to relieffrom joint and several liability with respect to an understatement ofFederal income tax reported on ajoint Federal income tax return filed for 2011 and an underpayment oftax for 2012.

Burden ofProof The taxpayer generally bears the burden ofproofwith respect to whether she is entitled to reliefunder section 6015, subject to certain exceptions.

ReliefFrom Joint and Several Liability Generally, married taxpayers may elect to filejoint Federal income tax returns.3° After making the election, each spouse isjointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for that year.4° Ifcertain requirements are met, section 6015 allows a taxpayer relieffromjoint and several liability.

rther indicated that petitioner is entitled to reliefunder section 6015(c) with respect to the portion ofthe deficiency for the taxable year 2010 that was attributable to respondent's proposed determination with respect to the 2010 law firm Schedule C.3 In the notice, respondent set forth the following with respect to the respec- tive claims under section 6015 that petitioner and intervenor had made: Mr.

Hollimon is entitled to innocent spouse reliefunder section 6015.1 Respondent initially denied 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED AUG 1 2 2015 4 - 2 - [*2] Ms.

2011. OPINION In general, a spouse who files ajoint Federal income tax return is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax liability. Sec. 6013(d)(3). A spouse seeking relieffromjoint and several liability may follow procedures established in section 6015. Ifthe disputed liabilities involve nonpayment oftaxes shown on ajoint - 4 - [*4] return, the only reliefavailable is under section 6015(f). See Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 88 (2003); see also Block v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62

petitioner agreed to all ofthe adjustments in the notice ofdeficiency, with the exception ofa capital gain adjustment for the sale of certain stock. During that case petitioner also attempted to argue for relieffrom joint and several liability under section 6015. However, because petitioner did not formally raise her section 6015 claim until trial, the Court denied her motion to amend the petition to raise that claim. On June 23, 2005, the capital gain issue was tried before Judge Holmes. On Oct

petitioner agreed to all ofthe adjustments in the notice ofdeficiency, with the exception ofa capital gain adjustment for the sale of certain stock. During that case petitioner also attempted to argue for relieffrom joint and several liability under section 6015. However, because petitioner did not formally raise her section 6015 claim until trial, the Court denied her motion to amend the petition to raise that claim. On June 23, 2005, the capital gain issue was tried before Judge Holmes. On Oct

on, each spouse isjointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for that taxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). A spouse seeking relieffromjoint and several liabilitymay followprocedures established in section 6015. Ifthe disputed liability involves nonpayment oftaxes shown on ajoint return, the only reliefavailable is under section 6015(f). See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003). Section 6015(f) authorizes the Commissionerto

7, respectively. Michael L. Thomas (petitioner) conceded the income tax deficiencies, and respondent agreed that petitioner Julie A. Thomas, n.k.a Julie A. Browne, is not liable for the income tax liabilities or penalties because ofthe application ofsection 6015. The sole issue remaining for consideration is whetherpetitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty for 2006 and/or 2007. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioners resided in Idaho at the time their petition was filed. In 2003 petitioner was

Section 6015(e)(1) gives the Tax Courtjurisdiction to determine the appropriate relief available to a taxpayer under section 6015, including credit or refund under section 6015(g).

Alexander Is Entitled to Innocent Spouse ReliefUnder Section 6015 Under section 6015(b), a requesting spouse may be relieved ofjoint and several liability from an understatement oftax to the extent that the understatement was attributable to the nonrequesting spouse.

Whether Monica Gaitan Is Entitled to Section 6015 Relief In her brief, Monica Gaitan does not contend she is entitled to section 6015(b) or (c) relief.

--- MAJORITY --- Kroupa, Judge: This case arises from a petition for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 after respondent issued a Final Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability under section 6015 denying petitioner relief from deficiencies for 1999 and 2000 (years at issue).

--- MAJORITY --- Gustafson, Judge: Petitioner Suzanne Pullins requested section 6015 “innocent spouse” relief from joint liability for income taxes for tax years 1999, 2002, and 2003.

ue process (CDP) proceeding under sections 6320 and`6330 .8 Assuming arguendo the Court of Appeals' application of a "record rule" in the CDP context, the CDP provisions of sections 6320 and 6330 are different from the innocent spouse, provisions of section 6015, and those differences include the following : The CDP petitioner's agency-level remedies are described at some length in section 6330(a), (b), and (c), and section 6330(d)(2) provides that the CDP petitioner must first "exhaust[] all ad

Petitioner brought this action under section 6015 seeking relief from joint and several liability for unpaid taxes.

In some cases, however, section 6015 can relieve a spouse from this joint liability.

Dunne is eligible for relief from joint liability under section 6015 for 1997 .

2005-170, the Court decided for respondent through partial summary adjudication all issues in this case, but for the correctness of respondent’s denial of a section 6015 claim to relief (spousal relief) made by Judith A.

sought review of respondent's denial of innocent-spouse relief under section 6015, triggering respondent's obligation to notify her husband of his right to intervene .

5 We held in McGee that the Commissioner must tell people subject to joint liability for unpaid taxes of their right to relief under section 6015 whenever he sends them a collection- related notice.

deral income tax return . We hold they SERVED AUG 1 4 2007 -2- did not . Cindy L . Butler (Butler) also requests relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) .1 We hold that Butler does not qualify for any relief under section 6015 . FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts are stipulated and are so found . The stipulated facts and the exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated herein by this reference . Petitioners Charles Roy Schwendeman (Schwendeman) and Butler were husban

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge : The issue for decision is whether petitioner, pursuant to section 6015,' is entitled to innocent spouse relief with respect to her 2000 and 2001 Federal income tax liabilities .

Section 6015(f ) Generally, spouses filing joint Federal income tax returns are jointly and severally liable for the taxes due on those returns . Sec . 6013(d)(3) . Section 6015 provides relief from liability in certain circumstances . Because the relief sought in this case is from a liability shown on petitioners' original 2000 return and assessed

On July 12, 2005, intervenor filed a notice of intervention and objected to petitioner's being relieved of liability under section 6015 .2 OPINION Petitioner does not dispute the deficiencies and penaltie s determined by respondent for the years in issue .

In his response filed February 5, 2007, respondent indicated that petitioner’s liability for tax year 2000 remained unpaid as of December 20, 2006, so that under the recent amendment to section 6015, this Court has jurisdiction over this case.

titioner Timothy Kosinski’s solely owned S corporation; (2) whether petitioners are liable for the fraud penalty pursuant to section 6663 for the year in issue, or, in the alternative, whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy- related penalty pursuant to section 6662; (3) whether petitioner Barbara Kosinski is entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015 for 1997; and (4) whether the statute of limitations bars assessment and collection of petitioners’ income tax liabilities for 1997.

2007 . Harry Charles , for petitioner . Zamir Jahic, pro se . Steven W . LaBounty, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge : The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to innocent spouse relief pursuant to section 6015 . 1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued. . . ) SERVED MAY 21 2007 - 2 - FINDINGS OF FACT On May 31, 1996, petitioner and intervenor were married in Norway . From January 2001 until August 2002, petition

The jurisdictional dispute in this case requires an examination of the interrelationship between the Court’s jurisdiction to review a claim for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return under section 6015 and the Court’s jurisdiction under the unified partnership audit and litigation procedures contained in sections 6221 through 6234.

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Ruwe, Judge: Petitioner timely filed a petition under section 6015(e) seeking review of respondent’s final determinations denying her relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the tax years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002.

The only issue raised in her petition is whether she is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015, Petitioner is not challenging the underlying deficiency.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge : The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to additional relief under section 6015 from joint liability for 1995 Federal income taxes, and related penalty, additions to tax, and interest .

Section 6015 (f) We note this case involves an unpaid tax liability for the year in issue. Because this case does not involve a deficiency or understatement, petitioner does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) ór (c). See sec. 6015(b)(1) and (c)(1); Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003). Therefore, our review is limited

13 2009 - 2 - filed in response to a determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 .1 The issue for decision is whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction under section 6015(e) to review the Commissioner's determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief .

In that petition, petitioner claimed that she is entitled to relief under section 6015 with respect to the additions to tax that respondent determined for her taxable year 1982 as well as interest thereon as provided by law .

MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge : This case arises from a petition for judicial review filed in response to a determination concerning !n _OCT 2 4 2006 c 2 - relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 .1 The Court has sua sponte raised the question of whether the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction .

, with respect to that portion of the deficiency for 1996 that is not attributable to fraud. Held, further, the statute of limitations does not bar assessment of liabilities for 1996 and 1997. Held, further, P W is not entitled to relief pursuant to sec. 6015, I.R.C., for the years 1996 and 1997. Robert Alan Jones, for petitioners. Richard J. Hassebrock and John A. Freeman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies and

In that petition, petitioner claimed that she is entitled to relief under section 6015 with respect to the additions to tax that respondent determined for her taxable year 1982 as well as interest thereon as provided by law.

Petitioner agreed - 5 - A taxpayer qualifies for relief under section 6015(f) if relief is not available under section 6015 (b) or (c) and, in light of the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for the tax or deficiency.

ar 1998 (petitioner’s Form 8857).16 Petitioner attached a statement to petitioner’s Form 8857, which stated in pertinent part: 15The record does not contain the order of Feb. 3, 2000. 16In petitioner’s Form 8857, petitioner also sought relief under sec. 6015 with respect to taxable year 1999. In a letter dated Aug. 31, 2001, that respondent sent to petitioner (dis- cussed below), respondent informed petitioner that respondent did not consider petitioner’s claim for relief under that section for

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: Petitioner challenges respondent' s determination that she is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (b) or, in the alt.ernative, under section 6015(f) for the taxable year 1983.¹ Petitioner 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued.

Section 6015 allows relief from joint and several liability on three grounds: subsection (b) lets a spouse seek relief if she can show that she neither knew, nor had reason to know, of an understatement on the return; subsection (c) lets divorced or separated spouses split their tax liability; and subsection (f) allows relief where “it is inequitab

' By Final Notice dated November 29, 2004, respondent denied petitioner's request for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 .2 Respondent sent the Final Notice to petitioner's last known address, the address shown on the Final Notice, by certified mail .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge : The issues for decision are whether this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 6015 (e),I to decide whether Diana Stroud (petitioner ) is entitled to relief from 1 Unless otherwise indicated , all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue .

, with respect to that portion of the deficiency for 1996 that is not attributable to fraud. Held, further, the statute of limitations does not bar assessment of liabilities for 1996 and 1997. Held, further, P W is not entitled to relief pursuant to sec. 6015, I.R.C., for the years 1996 and 1997. Robert Alan Jones, for petitioners. Richard J. Hassebrock and John A. Freeman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies and

During her Appeals conference, petitioner requested relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (section 6015 relief).

urns are jointly and severally liable for all taxes shown on the return or found to be owing. Sec. 6013(d)(3). In certain - 5 - situations, however, a joint return filer can avoid joint and several liability by qualifying for relief therefrom under section 6015. There are three types of relief available under section 6015: (1) full or apportioned relief under section 6015(b); (2) proportionate relief for divorced or separated taxpayers under section 6015(c); and (3) equitable relief under sectio

Baumann (Tomi), amended the deficiency petition to include the claim for relief under section 6015, Stanley now objects after respondent determined that Tomi qualifies for relief.

Subsequently, by letter dated July 22, 2002, to Debra Brush, the Appeals officer to whom petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief had been assigned, petitioner’s attorney supplemented the facts and legal analysis in support of her request for relief under section 6015(b), (c), or (f).

However, under certain circumstances a spouse who made a joint return may seek relief under section 6015 from joint and several liability.

ls Officer.” On September 9, 2002, the Appeals Office issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief Under the Equitable Relief Provision of Section 6015(f) (notice of determination) denying petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015. Although the notice of determination referenced only section 6015(f), the explanation of adjustments addressed petitioner’s claim for relief under section 6015(b), (c), and (f). The explanation of adjustments stated as follows with resp

3(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). In certain cases, however, an individual filing a joint return may avoid joint and several liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and other amounts) by qualifying for relief under section 6015. The three types of relief prescribed in that section are: (1) Full or apportioned relief under section 6015(b) (full or apportioned relief), (2) proportionate relief under section 6015(c) (proportionate relief), and (3) equitable relief

section 6501(a). We hold that she is and that section 6501(c)(1) annuls the 3-year period of limitations. 3. Whether respondent’s determination is barred by judicial estoppel. We hold that it is not. 4. Whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015. We hold that she is not. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Overview The parties submitted to the Court stipulated facts and related exhibits. We find those stipulated facts accordingly and incorporate those facts and exhibits herein. The Court also d

ondent in the notice of deficiency? We hold that they are not; (4) are unreported bank deposits of $30,953.94 in 1995 taxable to petitioners? We hold that they are; (5) is petitioner Dorene Payne (Mrs. Payne) entitled to innocent spouse relief under section 6015? We hold that she is not; and (6) are petitioners liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663? We hold that they are liable for the fraud penalty with respect to the unreported income they received from HRDC, but not with respect to

termination) sent separately to Patricia A. Hendricks (petitioner) and John J. Hendricks (Mr. Hendricks). In the notice of determination sent to petitioner, respondent denied - 2 - her request for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015. After concessions, the sole issue for decision is whether respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several tax liability pursuant to section 6015 as to 1983. Unless otherwise noted, all s

10519-04, Hickey petitioned the Court on June 21, 2004, for relief under section 6015 from joint liability for any amount that she is determined to be liable in docket No.

10519-04, Hickey petitioned the Court on June 21, 2004, for relief under section 6015 from joint liability for any amount that she is determined to be liable in docket No.

Relief Under Section 6015 In certain situations, a joint return filer can avoid joint and several liability by seeking relief under section 6015.15 Generally, a joint filer can seek relief under three alternatives: (1) Full or partial relief under section 6015(b); (2) proportionate relief under section 6015(c); and (3) equitable relief under section 6015(f).

On August 21, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a preliminary determination letter denying petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015 for taxable years 1982 through 1987.5 Respondent advised petitioner of her right to administratively appeal the decision.

We must decide whether respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for equitable relief pursuant to section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion. Under limited circumstances, a spouse may qualify for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015. In the instant case, petitioner reported the tax due but failed to make timely payment. Petitioner’s tax liability, therefore, arises from neither an understatement nor a deficiency. Based on the foregoing, petitioner concedes that reli

In Ewing, we held that when reviewing the Commissioner's determination for an abuse of discretion under section 6015, we may consider evidence presented at trial which was not included in the administrative record.

Ogonoski for the taxable years 1989 through - 5 - 1999 in the amounts set forth below as to which respondent denied petitioner’s prayer for relief under section 6015: Year Assessment Date Assessments 1989 5/28/90 $20,197.34 1990 6/3/91 23,431.75 1991 6/1/92 7,697.66 1992 5/31/93 12,829.84 1993 5/30/94 9,502.73 1994 5/29/95 4,630.19 1995 6/10/96 3,662.62 1996 6/2/97 3,865.19 1997 5/25/98 8,327.69 1998 10/30/00 2,047.29 1999 6/5/00 -0- Since at least 1997 through the present, petitioner and Mr.

- 2 - liabilities for 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986.2 Respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to any relief under section 6015, and we decide whether to sustain that determination.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for any portion of the unpaid interest resulting from an understatement of tax on a joint return filed with her former husband for 1989.

Horace Crump, for respondent MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1999 with respect to a joint tax return filed with Mary Cullen (Ms.

February 2, 2001, is her earliest refund claim relating to her 1995 overpayment.2 Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 162 (stating that a taxpayer’s request for relief from 2 Petitioner’s 1997 return, filed prior to the July 22, 1998, enactment of sec. 6015, is not a refund claim relating to 1995 because it could not have adequately apprised respondent of the basis of petitioner’s 1995 refund claim. Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 160-161 (2003). - 5 - joint and several liability enco

The issue for decision is whether respondent’s application of petitioner’s overpayment relating to 1998 as a credit against petitioner’s 1995 tax - 2 - liability bars granting petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several liability, pursuant to section 6015,1 for 1995.

MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: Pursuant to section 6015,1 petitioner made an administrative request for relief from Federal income tax liability for the taxable year 1979, seeking a refund of an overpayment that was applied on April 15, 1993, from 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

Petitioner’s 1992 nonmaster file transcript shows petitioner had a balance due, including interest, of $2,182.26 as of - 4 - February 28, 2002.3 Petitioner’s 1992 nonmaster file transcript also shows that respondent essentially had granted some form of section 6015 relief to petitioner.

- 3 - claim by petitioner under section 6015, respondent’s determinations contained in the notice of deficiency are not in dispute.

184, 189-190 (2004) (section 6015(e)(1)(B) does not preclude the Commissioner from filing a Federal tax lien against an individual making an election under section 6015).9 We hold respondent was not precluded from filing the NFTL against petitioner’s property.

Pursuant to section 6015, however, a spouse may seek relief from joint and several liability.3 One form of relief from joint and several liability on a joint return is equitable relief under section 6015(f).

secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(A)(i). The petition in this case was filed as a stand-alone petition. Section 6015(e)(4) provides that the nonelecting or “other spouse” is entitled to notice of a stand-alone proceeding involving a claim for relief under section 6015. The section provides in pertinent part that the “Tax Court shall establish rules which provide the individual filing a joint return but not making the election * * * with adequate notice and an opportunity to become a party to a proceedi

isdiction. Respondent’s motion presents an issue of first impression: whether the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) (2000) bars the filing of a petition with this Court in a so-called stand-alone proceeding brought pursuant to section 6015. As discussed in detail below, we shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss. Background On September 30, 2003, petitioner filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for t

Tice of petitioner’s contention that she should be relieved from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 (section 6015 relief).

In certain situations and subject to a variety of conditions, section 6015 provides for relief from the joint and several liability that arises from a joint return.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The sole issue for decision is whether Fatemeh Entezam is, pursuant to section 6015,1 entitled to relief from joint and several liability.

nt issued a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy action. Respondent determined that the tax liabilities were not discharged in the bankruptcy case, and that petitioner did not qualify for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. Petitioner’s Background Information Petitioner has a high school education. From 1962 until 1983, petitioner was a homemaker and stay-at-home mother. During the years at issue, petitioner had no business experience and no - 11 - earning

tax return are each responsible for the accuracy of their return and are jointly and severally liable for the full tax liability. Sec. 6013(d)(3). However, in certain circumstances, a taxpayer may obtain relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. In this case, petitioner relies upon section 6015(b)(1) which authorizes respondent to grant relief from joint and several liability if the taxpayer satisfies each requirement of subparagraphs (A) through (E). Section 6015(b)(1) provide

petition for redetermination invoking this Court’s deficiency jurisdiction pursuant to section 6213(a). For all years at issue in these consolidated cases, petitioner requests relief from joint and several liability under subsections (b) and (f) of section 6015.5 I. Statutory Background As a general rule, spouses filing a joint Federal income tax return are jointly and severally liable for the full tax liability. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Section 6015 contains various exceptions to this general rule. Se

The $1,938 tax liability was not paid, and it is for that liability that petitioner seeks relief under section 6015.2 Respondent has made no adjustments to either the separate return initially filed by Mr.

ated penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the taxable years 1995, 1996, and 1997;2 (7) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax pursuant to section 6654 for the taxable years 1996 and 1997;3 and (8) Whether petitioner Marilyn Sowards is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 for the taxable years at issue.

0 penalty relating to early withdrawal of funds from Mr. Orsino’s 401(k) accounts and failed to report $1,076 of savings bond interest and $5,100 of nonemployee compensation. On July 5, 2001, respondent notified Mr. Orsino of petitioner’s claim for section 6015 relief. On July 30, 2001, this Court filed Mr. Orsino’s notice of intervention, in which he contends that petitioner was fully aware of their joint income, benefited from such income, freely signed their joint returns, and benefited from

s raised only frivolous arguments in this proceeding. Both Ps executed the pertinent documents filed in the District Court action. Neither P asserted in the District Court action an entitlement to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to sec. 6015, I.R.C. On Aug. 11, 2000, the District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment against Ps in the amounts of the unpaid assessments for 1981, 1990, and 1992. The District Court’s judgment was affirmed

petition for redetermination invoking this Court’s deficiency jurisdiction pursuant to section 6213(a). For all years at issue in these consolidated cases, petitioner requests relief from joint and several liability under subsections (b) and (f) of section 6015.5 I. Statutory Background As a general rule, spouses filing a joint Federal income tax return are jointly and severally liable for the full tax liability. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Section 6015 contains various exceptions to this general rule. Se

Petitioner seeks relief - 2 - from joint and several income tax liability under section 6015.1 Respondent determined that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015, and petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review of respondent’s determination.

ated penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the taxable years 1995, 1996, and 1997;2 (7) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax pursuant to section 6654 for the taxable years 1996 and 1997;3 and (8) Whether petitioner Marilyn Sowards is entitled to relief from joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015 for the taxable years at issue.

137 (2003), in which we held that section 6015 applies to the full amount of any preexisting tax liability 2Petitioner’s ex-husband, Mr.

elief from joint and several liability. OPINION Taxpayers filing joint Federal income tax returns are generally jointly and severally liable for all taxes due. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Relief from joint liability is available in limited circumstances under section 6015. Sec. 6015(b), (c), (f). Lora claims she is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b) and (c). Lora makes no claim for equitable relief under section 6015(f). Generally, relief is available under section 60

hat when the Court’s jurisdiction is based on section 6015(e), the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to whether the taxpayer is entitled to relief from an existing joint and several liability on the basis of the specific relief provisions contained in section 6015. It is axiomatic that we are a Court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise our power only to the extent authorized by Congress. Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 133 (1999); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In her “s

raised only frivolous and groundless arguments. Both petitioners signed the documents filed with the District Court. Neither petitioner asserted in the District Court collection action an entitlement to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. On August 11, 2000, the District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the United States for unpaid assessed balances for the taxable years 1981, 1990, and 1992 in the amounts of $

The sole issue for decision is whether respondent’s application of petitioner’s overpayment, relating to 1998, as a credit against petitioner’s 1989 tax liability is, pursuant to section 6015, a collection action that bars petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several liability relating to 1989.

he did not file a joint return. On Feb. 12, 2001, P sent to the Tax Court a Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d). R filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of whether P is eligible for relief under I.R.C. sec. 6015. Held: The petition was timely filed in order for the Court to have jurisdiction to review R's denial of spousal relief. Sec. 6015(e)(1), I.R.C. Held, further, R's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted because there is no gen

Rowe (hereinafter petitioner) relief from joint and several liability pursuant to h1tvrD MAY 3 12002 - 2 - section 6015¹ with respect to certain omitted income and erroneous deduction items giving rise to deficiencies.

Prior to enactment of section 6015, relief from joint and several liability was available under section 6013(e) if a taxpayer met the following requirements: (1) The joint return contained a substantial understatement of tax attributable to grossly erroneous items of the spouse not seeking relief; (2) the spouse seeking relief established that in signing the return, the

On August 10, 2000, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015, determining that petitioner was not entitled to relief under section 6015(f).

6015, which replaced sec. 6013.

SERVED JdN 1 Ô 2002 The issues remaining for decision are: (1) Does the Court have jurisdiction over petitioner' s request for relief under section 6015 (f) for taxable years 1990 and 1991?

tatement of tax 1 Petitioners concede that the notice of deficiency is valid. Cf. Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983). Respondent concedes, and petitioner William G. Kellen does not dispute, that pursuant to sec. 6015, petitioner Debra C. Kellen is entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the additions to tax. - 3 - liability. We hold that petitioner is liable for such addition. The foregoing two issues relate to the participation of petit

For a detailed discussion of the legislative history of section 6015 (and its predecessor section 6013), see Cheshire v.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This is a proceeding commenced under section 6015, based on respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1987, 1992, and 1995 with respect to joint returns filed with Hugh V.

Banks has no deficiency for 1992 because she qualifies for relief from joint liability on a joint return under section 6015, we must decide: 1.

s relating thereto. OPINION Generally, taxpayers filing joint Federal income tax returns are jointly and severally liable for all taxes due. See sec. 6013(d)(3). - 8 - Certain taxpayers, however, may be relieved of joint and several liability under section 6015. Michael claims that he is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under the traditional rule of section 6015(b) and also under the separate liability election of section 6015(c). Michael makes no claim for equitable relief un

Joseph E. Diamond, for petitioner. Mufthiha Sabaratnam, for intervenor. David R. Jojola, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION NIMS, Judge: Respondent determined a Federal income tax deficiency for petitioners’ 1995 taxable year in the amount of $64,745. Respondent also determined an addition to tax of $16

Banks has no deficiency for 1992 because she qualifies for relief from joint liability on a joint return under section 6015, we must decide: 1.

ement. Many taxpayers tried unsuccessfully to obtain relief under section 6013(e), even after it was amended in 1984. In order to make relief from joint and several liability more accessible, Congress, in 1998, repealed section 6013(e) and enacted section 6015. See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734; H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 249 (1998). Section 6015 provides several avenues of relief, one of which is section 6015(b)(1). S

Charlton sought relief under section 6015.2 Following concessions,3 we must decide the following issues: 1 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Petitioners jointly filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for each of the taxable years at issue. With respect to taxable year 1981, petitioners twice filed an amended 1 Without considering the application of the relief provisions of sec. 6015 to petitioner Penelope J. Von Kalinowski, petitioners concede deficiencies of $179,230 and $81,495 for tax years 1981 and 1982, respectively. Respondent concedes the additions to tax under sec. 6653(a)(1) and (a)(2). 2 Sec. 6015 was added b

Discussion We have previously analyzed the effect of the enactment of section 6015 on the prior law under section 6013(e).

rabilia activity in the amounts of $96,350 in 1991 and $28,001 in 1992; (2) whether petitioners are liable for self-employment tax on the net income from the sports memorabilia activity; (3) whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a); and (4) whether petitioner Barbara Kling is eligible for relief under section 6015 with respect to any understatement of tax attributable to the sports memorabilia activity.

Beck did not file a joint return for any year in issue, the provisions of section 6015 for relief from joint and several liability on joint returns are inapplicable.10 Consequently, we construe Mrs.

OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE Couvillion, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,781 in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1993. The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint liability under section 6015. The underlying deficiency determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency is not at issue. Curtis T. Freeman (intervenor) is the former spouse of petitioner and filed an intervention in this proceeding pursuant to section 6015(e)(4

During the pendency of the case, Congress repealed section 6013(e) and enacted section 6015 as a substitute.

le year 1990, H and W filed a joint Federal income tax return. In her original petition, W sought innocent spouse relief under former sec. 6013(e), I.R.C. After the trial in this case, former sec. 6013(e), I.R.C. - 2 - was repealed and replaced by sec. 6015, I.R.C. Subsequently, W filed administrative elections for relief pursuant to sec. 6015(b) and (c), I.R.C. R made a full concession of W’s liability under sec. 6015(c), I.R.C., but made no determination under sec. 6015(b), I.R.C. W seeks judi

are to the Tax Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. The sole issue for consideration is whether petitioner should be relieved of liability for any portion of the income tax and additions to tax under the provisions of section 6015. Entitlement to relief is, in part, dependent upon a taxpayer’s knowledge about the questioned item(s) at the time of signing a joint return. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner and her husband, Glen H. Martin, filed delinquent joint Federal inc

le year 1990, H and W filed a joint Federal income tax return. In her original petition, W sought innocent spouse relief under former sec. 6013(e), I.R.C. After the trial in this case, former sec. 6013(e), I.R.C. - 2 - was repealed and replaced by sec. 6015, I.R.C. Subsequently, W filed administrative elections for relief pursuant to sec. 6015(b) and (c), I.R.C. R made a full concession of W’s liability under sec. 6015(c), I.R.C., but made no determination under sec. 6015(b), I.R.C. W seeks judi

On July 22, 1998–-before opening briefs were due--section 6015 was enacted, replacing former section 6013(e), which was repealed generally as of the same date.

Whereas section 6013(e) had offered only a single avenue of relief, based on a spouse’s lack of knowledge or reason to know of a substantial understatement, section 6015 authorizes three types of relief.

740, provides that section 6015 applies to any tax liability arising after July 22, 1998, and any tax liability arising on or before July 22, 1998, and remaining unpaid as of that date.

unt of $5,394, as well as an accuracy-related - 2 - penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $1,079.1 After concessions by the parties,2 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. We hold that he is not. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court. Petitioner married Joyce Jo

Gebman was not entitled to “innocent spouse” relief under section 6015 with respect to any of the tax liabilities.

Aside from petitioners’ failure to show that any of the factors that are taken into account in deciding whether a spouse is entitled to section 6015(f) relief apply to petitioner, it would seem to offend common sense to allow both spouses section 6015 relief with respect to the same income tax liability.

der section 6013(d)(3). Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). A spouse may seek relief from this joint and several liability under section 6015(b). We apply a de novo standard of review to any determination made by the Commissioner under section 6015. See § 6015(e)(7); Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009), superseded in part by statute, Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, § 1203, 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019). While a requesting spouse generally bears the burden of provin

We also held that petitioner was not entitled to “innocent spouse” relief under section 6015 with respect to any of the tax liabilities redetermined for 2001 and 2002.

The Court held a partial trial with respect to the deficiencies and penalties, reserving for a future trial the issue of section 6015 relief.4 2 Petitioners object to the admission of the Civil Penalty Approval Form and an accompanying declaration on the grounds of hearsay and relevance (but not authenticity).

ot include “a debt with respect to which collection is suspended . . . because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending,” or because relief from joint and several liability is sought pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015. I.R.C. § 7345(b)(2)(B). Additionally, no “debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an [installment] agreement . . . under section 6159 or [a compromise agreement under section] 7122” is a seriously delinquent tax debt. I.R

ourt, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Petitioner seeks review under section 6015(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Service’s final determination with respect to petitioner’s request for innocent spouse relief under section 6015. The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015 from liability for federal income tax for tax year 2017 (year in issue). 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Intern

y. Prior to Covid we significantly had a drop in revenue and for months could only afford living expenses 7 [*7] . . . [and] would kindly request some relief on penalties [and] interest.” Additionally, he sought relief on behalf of his spouse under section 6015. However, as explained during the CDP hearing, Mr. Olson was not in compliance with his 2020 and 2021 tax filing obligations, nor was he up to date with his 2022 estimated tax payments. An SO does not abuse her discretion when she decline

In their Petition, petitioners also claim that petitioner Sharyn Soleimani is entitled to relief under section 6015, but they made no mention of that claim at trial or on brief and are deemed to have abandoned it.

not include “a debt with respect to which collection is suspended . . . because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending” or because relief from joint and several liability is sought pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015. I.R.C. § 7345(b)(2)(B). Additionally, no “debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an [installment] agreement . . . under section 6159 or [a compromise agreement under section] 7122” is a seriously delinquent tax debt. I.R

Federal tax liabilities that are being timely paid under an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise, or for which collection is suspended because the taxpayer requested a CDP hearing under section 6330 or made an election or requested relief under section 6015, are excluded from the definition of a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” I.R.C.

x debt” are (1) debts that are being timely paid under an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise and (2) debts for which collection is suspended because the taxpayer requested a CDP hearing under section 6330 or innocent spouse relief under section 6015. I.R.C. § 7345(b)(2). Neither exclusion is applicable here. 7 [*7] A. First Requirement: Assessment “Assessment” is defined in section 6203 and is the process by which the amount of tax owed to the IRS is fixed by recording the liability

Podlucky is entitled to relief from joint and Served 05/05/22 2 [*2] several liability under section 6015.1 For the reasons that follow, we sustain the IRS’s deficiency and penalty determinations and hold that Mrs.

Section 7345(b)(2) excludes from the definition of “seriously delinquent tax debt” any debt that is “being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement * * * under section 6159 or 7122” and any debt for which “collection is suspended * * * because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending, or * * * because” relief under section 6015 is requested.7 Section 7345(d) requires the Commissioner to contemporaneously notify a taxpayer of any certification under subsection (a).

e reason for her underlying liabilities. The SO told her that the liabilities were attributable to notices of deficiency for 2015 and 2016 and summarized the notices’ contents. 3Petitioner also selected the box to request innocent spouse relief, see sec. 6015, but later explained that she checked this box by mistake. - 5 - [*5] The SO explained that the notices were mailed to petitioner at her last known address but were “never claimed” and were returned to the IRS unopened. In response petition

In addition petitioners checked the box requesting section 6015 relief for Ms.

3Similarly, as to death’s non-effect on our jurisdiction over “innocent spouse” cases under section 6015, see Jonson v.

we would presumably be obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction in view of the fact that we generally lack jurisdiction to review any decision letter arising from an equivalent hearing--except where it contains a denial of relief under sec. 6015. See Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 257-259 (2002). - 15 - 30-day period commencing on the day after the date of the CDP Notice.”11 Sec. 301.6330-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also id. para. (c)(1), (2), Q&A-C3. When the IRS se

nt’s motion is whether the IRS cor- rectly determined petitioners’ liability for AMT.2 Section 56 sets forth a number 2This opinion does not address the question whether petitioner Mazwin is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under sec. 6015. - 5 - [*5] of adjustments in computing alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI), the tax base for the AMT. Section 56(b) provides in relevant part: SEC. 56(b). Adjustments Applicable to Individuals.--In determining the amount of the altern

This Court retains jurisdiction ofremanded CDP proceedings.3 By contrast, this Court has declined to remand a so-called stand alone proceeding under section 6015 for spousal relieffromjoint and several liability.

Rogers seeks relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Rogers seeks relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

L. Shumway, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a notice ofdetermination concerning collection action and a notice ofdetermination denying a request for reliefunder section 6015. The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to reliefunder section 6015(f) from liability onjoint returns SERVED Sep 04 2019 - 2 - [*2] filed with Michael J. Welwood (M. Welwood) for 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015 and whether c

Rogers seeks relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

He elaborated: Taxpayers who choose to litigate their section 6015 [innocent spouse] and section 6404 claims as part ofa section 6330 proceeding cannot obtain decisions ofan overpayment or a refund in Tax Court.

dissolved in 2015. They have three children. ¹All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure. 2Ifa spouse petitions the Court for sec. 6015 relief, the nonrequesting spouse has a right to intervene in the case under sec. 6015(e)(4). Rule 325; Van Arsdalen v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 135, 138 (2004). By doing so, the intervenor becomes a party. Tipton v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 214

must establish (among other things) that "the same 'transaction, item or taxable event' 5As far as the record reveals, petitioner has not filed with the IRS a request for relieffromjoint and several liability (so-called innocent spouse relief) under section 6015. - 12 - [*12] * * * [is] subject to two taxes," which are "inconsistent in that the Tax Code authorizes only a single tax." Estate ofBranson v. Commissioner, 264 F.3d 904, 909 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596,

Ifcertain requirements are met, however, an individual may be relieved ofjoint and several liability under section 6015, which provides for three forms ofrelief.

ating that the IRS has the option ofproceeding against either spouse who signed ajoint return, but can collect the liability only once). Relieffromjoint and several liability is afforded tojoint-return filers under the tests set forth in - 8 - [*8] section 6015. Although Asad and Akel petitioned the Court for relieffrom joint and several liability under section 6015, at trial neither contended that they satisfied the tests for reliefunder section 6015. It is apparent that they both would agree t

However, we found petitioner's testimony insufficient to support a conclusion that she was in poor mental or physical health at the time thejoint Forms 1040 for the years at issue were filed, at the time she requested section 6015 relief, or at the time oftrial.

Ifcertain requirements are met, however, an individual may be relieved ofjoint and several liability under section 6015, which provides for three forms ofrelief.

ility; instead he has raised only the issues of(1) whether the IRS' acceptance ofMrs. Harris' OIC relieves him from hisjoint and several liability for the 2012 unpaid tax and (2) whether he is eligible for relieffromjoint and several liability under sec. 6015. -20- preparation ofher Form 656 and addendum; for example, it is not clear whether petitioner reviewed either document before its submission to the IRS. The Court further notes that under "Offer Terms" on page 4 ofthe Form 656 signed and s

ating that the IRS has the option ofproceeding against either spouse who signed ajoint return, but can collect the liability only once). Relieffromjoint and several liability is afforded tojoint-return filers under the tests set forth in - 8 - [*8] section 6015. Although Asad and Akel petitioned the Court for relieffrom joint and several liability under section 6015, at trial neither contended that they satisfied the tests for reliefunder section 6015. It is apparent that they both would agree t

al income tax return.2 Ifthey do, each spouse isjointly and severally liable for the entire tax liability for that year.3 In certain circumstances, a spouse who has previously filed ajoint return may seek relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015. When the liability arises from an underpayment oftax reported as due on the return, reliefis available only under section 6015(f).4 Section 6015(f)(1), authorizes the Commissioner to grant relieffromjoint and several liability if "taking

(June 7, 2013). On or around January 21, 2016, W obtained new counsel. Shortly thereafter W moved for and was granted leave to file a separate amended petition. In the amended petition W raised a claim to relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015. Respondent concedes that W is entitled to reliefand H disputes her entitlement. OPINION I. Deductions Claimed for 2011 and 2012 Generally, taxpayers bear the burden ofproving that the adjustments set forth in the Commissioner's notice o

their petition or otherwise the notice ofdeficiency's disallowance oftheir claimed education credits. It is accordingly deemed conceded. See Rule 34(b)(4). Petitioners requested earlier in this case that Kaleb be granted innocent spouse reliefunder sec. 6015. This Court instructed petitioners to amend their petition or file the administrative request with the IRS. Petitioners did neither and failed to raise this request at trial or in their briefs; it is also deemed conceded. See Mendes v. Comm

Such "relevant issue[s]" specifically include: (cid:16)042 "appropriate spousal defenses" (i.e., under section 6015); (cid:16)042 "the appropriateness ofcollection actions" (here, the lien); and (cid:16)042 "offers ofcollection alternatives, which may include the posting ofa bond, the substitution ofother assets, an installment agreement, or an offer-in-compromise." Sec.

mitted to the IRS a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, for the taxable year 2010. Petitioner asserted that he had no knowledge ofMs. Jarrell's unreported income for 2010, and he requested full relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015. On August 24, 2015, the IRS sent petitioner a preliminary determination indicating that he was entitled to spousal reliefunder section 6015(c) and that he was not liable for the balance ofthe tax due for the taxable year 2010. The IRS -4

at 3123 (2015), provides that spousal reliefcases under sec.

And we are mindful that the Code provides for Social Security benefits to be adjusted for repayments during the tax year. Section 86(d)(2)(A) provides: For purposes ofthis section, the amount ofsocial security benefits received during any taxable year shall be reduced by any repayment made by the taxpayer during the taxable year ofa soci

tioner for 2009 and 2010. Ms. Franklin is not a party to these proceedings. Because we assume that petitioner isjointly and severally liable for any deficiencies in his and Ms. Franklin's 2007 and 2008 tax, see sec. 6013(d)(3), b_u_t - 3 - [*3] see sec. 6015, we will for ease ofdiscussion disregard Ms. Franklin and speak as ifonly petitioner made the 2007 and 2008 returns.¹ Respondent determined the following deficiencies in tax and the following additions to tax and penalties. Additions to tax

This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent's final determination that petitioner is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability with respect to an understatement ofFederal income tax reported on ajoint Federal income tax return filed for 2011.

SERVED Jul 11 2016 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judge: This case is before us with respect to respondent's denial ofpetitioner's request for relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015¹ for 2007, 2008, and 2009 (years involved).

section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. The sole issue before the Court is whetherpetitioner is entitled to innocent spouse reliefunder section 6015. Respondent denied petitioner's request for relief relating to a deficiency from her 2007 taxable year. We find that petitioner is not entitled to reliefunder section 6015(b), (c), or (f). Background Some ofthe facts have been stipulated,

27396-12, seeking relief under section 6015 for years 2004 through 2010.

ection, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). Ifcertain requirements are met, however, an individual may be relieved ofjoint and several liability under section 6015. The Court applies a de novo scope and standard ofreview in deciding whether a taxpayer is entitled to reliefunder section 6015. See Wilson v. Commissioner, 705 F.3d 980, 993-994 (9th Cir. 2013), af_ff'g T.C. Memo. 2010- 134; Porter v. C

In a final notice ofdetermination dated July 20, 2012, respondent denied petitioner's claim for section 6015 reliefwith respect to her outstanding 2006 Federal income tax liability assessed by agreement following respondent's examination ofthe 2006 Federal income tax return ofa different individual.

APR - 6 2015 [*2] respect tb petitioners' Federal income tax for 1999 and 2000, respectively.' The issues for decision are: (1) whetherthe statute oflimitations bars the assessment and collection ofdeficiencies in income tax and additions to tax for 1999 and 2000; (2) whether Sarah Jacoby is entitled to relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 for 1999 and 2000; and (3) whether Steven Jacoby is liable for section 6663 civil fraud penalties for 1999 and 2000.

s appear on her behalfand signed the stipulation ofsettled issues, the supplemental stipulation ofsettled issues, and the stipulation offacts. On January 23, 2013, Mrs. Edwards filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, but the claim for sec. 6015 reliefis not set forth in the pleadings ofthis case. - 10 - [*10] On April 22 and 25, 2013, respondent filed an amendmentto his amended answer and an amended amendmentto his amended answer, respectively. These documents memorializedthe stip

NEGA, J_u.ddge: Petitioner seeks this Court's review, pursuantto section 6015,1 ofthe denial by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ofher requests for 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.), as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

ax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the election, each spouse isjointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for thattaxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3). A spouse seeking relieffromjoint and several liability may follow procedures established in section 6015. Ifthe disputed liability involves nonpayment oftaxes shown on ajoint return, the only reliefavailable is under section 6015(f). See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003). Section 6015(f) authorizes the Commissioner to

Section 6015, however, allows a spouse to obtain relieffromjoint and several liability in certain circumstances. Section 6015(a)(1) provides that a spouse who has made ajoint return mayelectto seek relieffromjoint and several liability under subsection (b) (dealing withrelieffrom liability for an understatement oftax with respect to a joint return)

Thus, on the Form 12153 he did not request a collection alternative, he did not assert that he could notpay the tax, he did not request reliefunder section 6015, and he did not raise any other relevant issue related to the unpaid tax or proposed levy.

On September 29, 2009, petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, seeking reliefunder section 6015 for 2006, 2007, and 2008.

There, the CCISO-determined that the taxpayer was entitled to relief under section 6015 and recommended that the taxpayer receive such relief.

income tax liabilities for the years at issue constitute "deficiency determinations" that entitle her to a 90-day period for filing a petition 2(...continued) under sec. 6015(e)(1)(A) to determine the appropriate reliefavailable to petitioner under sec. 6015. 4 with this Court for review ofa deficiency determination, see sec. 6213(a), rather than the 30-day period for filing a petition for review ofa collection action determination under section 6330, see sec. 6330(d)(1). Petitioner asks us to

6015 (ReliefFrom Joint And Several Liability On Joint Return). We assume petitioners were referring to petitioner Mai Nguyen, although they do not say. They aver no facts in support ofthe claim, nor have they identified any evidence supporting it. Petitioners also failed to address that claim on brief. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners h

do not report the taxable distribution on theirjoint return. The Service later proposes a deficiency relating to the taxable IRA distribution and assesses the deficiency against H and W. W requests relieffromjoint - 10 - and several liability under section 6015. W establishes that W did not contribute to the IRA, sign paperworkrelating to the IRA, or otherwise act as ifW were the owner ofthe IRA. W thereby rebutted the presumption that the IRA is attributable to W. (c) Misappropriation offunds.

This case arises from petitioner's request for relieffrom joint and several liability under section 6015 with respect to an understatement ofFederal income tax for 2008.

the notice ofdeficiency because the 2004 Federal income tax return was filed as ajoint return. Mrs. Cross filed a petition on April 20, 2009 (docket No. 9480-09). In her petition Mrs. Cross asserted, inter alia, that she was an innocent spouse under sec. 6015. Mr. Cross intervened as a nonrequesting spouse pursuant to sec. 6015(e)(4) and Rule 325. The caption of docket No. 9480-09 was changed to include Mr. Cross as intervenor. On August 22, 2011, Mrs. Cross and respondent filed ajoint motion to

Mwangachuchu's Claim for Innocent Spouse ReliefUnder Section 6015 In the final paragraph oftheir opening brief, petitioners raised for the first time the following "innocent spouse claim" for Ms.

The settlement officer advised petitioner ofthe availability ofand requirements for an offer-in-compromise as well as requests for abatement ofinterest and requests for section 6015 reliefby Ms.

This case arises from petitioners' requests for relieffromjoint and several liability under section 6015 with respÁct to an understatement ofFederal income tax for 2008.

ReliefUnder Section 6015 Married couples may file their tax returnsjointly; but ifthey do, they are jointlyresponsible for the accuracy ofthe returns andjointly liable for the tax due.

cy in petitioner's 2004 Federal income tax and a $3,699.40 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). By agreement of the parties, the only issue we must decide is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in California. Petit

2005 and 2006 tax years . Held: Ps had unreported income and are liable for the deficiencies .in Federal income taxes and the penalties . Held, further: P-W is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the deficiencies pursuant to sec. 6015, I.R.C. Akop Baltavan, for petitioner Khatchatour Akopian. Kathryn I. Phillips, for petitioner Ruzanna Terfanyan. Kris H. An, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on a pe

Petitioner seeks relief under section 6015 from joint and several liability for the deficiency determined by audit.

(2) whether petitioner. is entitled to relief under section 66(c) and therefore is not subject to the general rule that community property is taxable one half to each spouse; and. (3) whether petitioner is an innocent spouse entitled to relief under section 6015. FINDINGS OF FACT Some orf the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of fac.ts is incorporated herein by this reference. At the time petitioner filed her petition, she resided in California. At the time intervenor

he taxable year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Some monetary amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. 2At trial petitioner Ana A. Ryan conceded that she is not entitled to relief under sec. 6015. - 3 - 2003, the TSP Service Office approved petitioner's loan application. Petitioner received the $50,000 as a lump-sum loan and used the funds to pay off debt and purchase a parcel of land. I. Removal From Service and Subsequent Appeals

98WED DEC -5 2011 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition for judicial review of respondent's determination denying relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the 2006 taxable year.1 The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) for the 2006 taxablé year.

SERVEDJan112011 - 2 - 1 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ^ WHERRY,- Judge: This case arises from a petition fór judicial review of respondent's determination denying relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the taxable years 2000 and 2002.1 The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liabil ty under section 6015(f) for the taxable years 2000 and 2002.

turn are jointly and severally liable for all taxes shown on the return or found to be owing. Sec. 6013(d) (3). In certain situations, however, a joint return filer can avoid such joint and several liability by qualifying for relief therefrom under section 6015. There are three types of relief available under section 6015: (1) Full or apportioned relief under section 6015(b), (2) proportionate tax relief for divorced or separated taxpayers under section 6015(c), and (3) equitable relief under se

entire tax due for that year. Sec. 6013(d) (3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). In certain circumstances, however, a spouse who has filed a joint return may seek relief from joint and several liability under procedures set forth in section 6015. Sec. 6015(a). Under section 6015(a) a spouse may seek relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, may allocate liability according to provisions set forth in section - 7 - 6015(c). If a taxpayer does n

In a final notice of determination dated August 6, 2008, respondent denied petitioner's claim for section 6015 relief with respect to the joint and several income tax liabilities arising from the 2004 and 2005 joint Federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and Walter Dulaney (intervenor).

May) is not entitled to relief under section 6015 from joint and several liability for the years at issue.

May) is not entitled to relief under section 6015 from joint and several liability for the years at issue.

e present case. Both this case and the prior criminal case against Mr. Prater center on his activities as coowner and manager of Respondent concedes that Mrs. Prater is not liable for the sec. 6663(a), I.R.C., fraud penalty. Mrs. Prater concedes her sec. 6015, I.R.C., innocent spouse claim. 2Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. -3- Carpet Transport, Inc. (CTI). There is no d

e present case. Both this case and the prior criminal case against Mr. Prater center on his activities as coowner and manager of Respondent concedes that Mrs. Prater is not liable for the sec. 6663(a), I.R.C., fraud penalty. Mrs. Prater concedes her sec. 6015, I.R.C., innocent spouse claim. 2Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. -3- Carpet Transport, Inc. (CTI). There is no d

6015 (c) (3) (B) . Liability allocation is based on the -items that gave rise to the deficiency (erroneous items) . Erroneous items are allocated to each spouse as though each had filed a separate return for the taxable year, subj ect to some exceptions . Sec . 6015 (d) (3 ) (A) . Erroneous items are reallocated under the tax benefit exception

d monthly bank statements but did not balance the checkbook . Petitioner also reported that she earned $2,400 and spent $2,360 per month . On November 17, 2005, the IRS issued a preliminary determination denying petitioner's request for relief under section 6015 . On December 4, 2005, petitioner completed and signed a Form 12509, Statement of Disagreement, in which she formally disagreed with the IRS' preliminary determination . Because petitioner disagreed with the IRS' preliminary determinatio

ome is subject to tax, ,and respondent agrees that petitioners. are entitled to a $40 telephone excise tax .credit . Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether Sally A . -Dykes Jaske (petitioner) is entitled to relief from joint liabilit y under section 6015 . Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . The stipulation. of .facts and the attached(cid:127)exhibits,are incorporated herein by reference . At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in ,Tennes

-the part of Evans, justifying the penalty and , negating the bar: of.-the statute of limitations ; whether petitioners are-entitled to any deductions not allowed by respondent ; and whether Madelyn F . Evans (Ms . Evans) is entitled to relief under section 6015 . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal .Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in=issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the f

115, 117 (2008) (when determining- whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief under section 6015, the CoÚrt smay consider evidence introduced at trial but not.included in the , administrative record); sec.

to various conditions and in a variety of ways, an individual who has made a joint return may--elect to seek relief from the joint and several liability arising from that joint return . Sec . 6015 . There are three types of relief available under section 6015 . In general, subsection (b) provides full or apportioned relief from joint and several liability, subsection (c) provides proportionate tax relief to divorced or separated taxpayers, and subsection (f) provides equitable relief from joint

On January 15, 2009, respondent issued'a determination denying petitioner relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (b) , (c) , and (f) because petitioner failed to meet the requirements for relief under section 6015.

This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent's determination that Harriet Sommer (Mrs.

f the tax liability shown or required to be shown on the return . Sec . 6013(d)(3) ; Butler v .tCommissioner, 114 T .C . 276, 282 (2000) . If certain requireiments are met, however, an individual may be relieved of joint and several liability under section 6015 . 'Although the record contains no evidence regarding .the additional tax, it appears the IRS abated the assessment against Schepers' ex-wife resultinglfrom the notice of deficiency, as the additional tax is the di'ffe'rence between the

Discussion Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to her entitlement to relief under section 6015 .

Petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that he is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for his 1997, 1998, 1999, 2003, and 2004 income tax liabilities.

Discussion Section 6015 relief from joint and several liability is not available to a taxpayer for any given year if the taxpayer did not file a joint Federal income tax return with the taxpayer's spouse for that year .

In a final notice of determination dated July 19, 2007, respondent denied petitioner's claim for section 6015 relief with respect to the joint and several liability arising from the 2004 and 2005 joint Federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and Marc H .

This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability with respect to th e unpaid tax liability reported on the 2002 joint return petitioner filed with Mary Sue Bacon (Ms .

At the, hearing petitioner did not discuss'the issues'"presented in'the CDP' hearing -request but .instead' raised 'the'-'i'ssue of section 6015- innocent spouse .

2006-199, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over "stand-alone" section 6015(f ) cases .

In a final notice of determination, respondent denied petitioner's request for section 6015 relief from joint and several liability for her unpaid 2002 Federal income tax liability .

115, 117 (2008) (when determining- whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief under section 6015, the CoÚrt smay consider evidence introduced at trial but not.included in the , administrative record); sec.

-the part of Evans, justifying the penalty and , negating the bar: of.-the statute of limitations ; whether petitioners are-entitled to any deductions not allowed by respondent ; and whether Madelyn F . Evans (Ms . Evans) is entitled to relief under section 6015 . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal .Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in=issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the f

Mathia , acting individually,j .led a Form 8857, Request for Innocent .Spouse Relief, wherein she sought-relief under section 6015 from joint and several liability for all tax liabilities attributable Greenwich for 1982, 1983, and 1984 .

Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge : The issue for decision is whether petitioner Mary Ann O'Meara is entitled to relief under section 6015 ( f) from unpaid joint Federal income taxes, as follows : ' ' The record does not reflect the status of petitioners' Federal income taxes for 1994, 1996 , 1997, and 1998 .

relief from joint liability under section 6015 ( f) is required to satisfy .

Petitioner did not allege entitlement to a collection alternative or to any other relief such as under section 6015 (innocent spouse) .

Martino a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under Section 6015 (section 6015 notice of - 10 - determination) wherein respondent determined Mrs .

The Felts argued that Sharon's lifestyle was not lavish during-this time, but that is the test for innocent-spouse relief under section 6015 and section 66(c) equitable relief, not the test under section 2 66 (c) (4) ,1 11 The regulation, of course, does provide that lack of significant benefit is only one factor to be considered in what is supposed to be an all-the-facts-and-circumstances test .

UNITED STATES TAX COURT. ARLENE L . POLLOCK, Petitioner v . . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 17755-07'.- Filed February 12,'2009 . P sought relief from joint liability-for unpaid taxes under sec. 6015, I .R .C . R sent her a notice of determination` denying relief,' but at'a time before Congress gave the Tax Court jurisdiction to review suc h denials.. 'R then sought to collect the taxes in a lien- enforcement action . This prompted the District Cour t hearing the lien

intly and severally liable for the entire tax due . Sec . 6013(d)(3) . A spouse may seek relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b), or if eligible, may seek allocation of liability for the item giving rise to the deficiency under section 6015 .(c) . _ 5 _ Where an individual . elects to have section 6015(b) or (c) apply, or in the case-of an individual who requests equitabl e relief under section=6015(f),2 section 6015(e) gives jurisdictio n to the Court "to determine the app

ty in-years before 2001 ; (2) additions to tax for failure to file a timely return should have been abated and interest assessments did not account for payments petitioners made ; and (3) Mrs . Kohn was not liable for thei:unpaid tax liability under section 6015 . During the hearing Mr . Kohn 4 u i! also contended that respondent did not credit to petitioners' tax accounts $40,000 in. payments they supposedly made in 2004 and 2005 'nd that respondent credited to their 2000 tax account only $20,0

As ° directed by 'section 6015 (f) , the Commissioner ,ha s prescribed guidelines in Rev .

Sec 6015 (b) (1) (B) , (C) , (2) . Under section 6015(c), among other things, a requesting spouse may receive relief from joint and several liability to the extent of the portion of the income tax deficiency allocable to the nonrequesting spouse . Cheshire v . Commissioner, 115 T .C . 183, 193 (2000), affd . 282 F .3d 326 (5th Cir . 2002) . However

As ° directed by 'section 6015 (f) , the Commissioner ,ha s prescribed guidelines in Rev .

Discussion Burden of Proof Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to her entitlement to innocent spouse relief .

The issues for decision are whethe r petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 ( f) and whether she is entitled to a refund of amounts paid towards the liability .

ficiency at any time between April 8'and July 10, 1997 . In response to the notice of deficiency Ms . Conn, but not petitioner, timely filed a°petition with'this Court on July 10, 1997 :° Before trial respondent conceded that under the provisions of section 6015 Ms . Conn was not liable for the deficiency, and the Court entered a decision based-on the parties' settlement . On September 9,-1997, respondent assessed the .1993 income tax deficiency and section 6663 penalty against petitioner . Peti

Respondent's Appeals officer determined that, since petitioner's return was filed with "single" status, section 6015 did not apply.

Discussion Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitione r bears the burden of proof with respect to her entitlement to relief under section 6015 .

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is' lentitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f ) with respect to Federal income tax liability for the year 2000 .

Discussion A predicate to relief under section 6015 is that a joint income tax return was filed .

TC par. 50,107 (9th Cir. 2007), the Court sustained respondent’s determination that petitioner was liable for a substantial deficiency for 1996, as well as a fraud penalty under sec. 6663(a). The Court also denied petitioner’s claim for relief under sec. 6015. - 10 - Revenue Officer Farrell Stevens (Revenue Officer Stevens) was assigned to collect petitioners’ unpaid tax liabilities for 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, and 1996. On April 30, 2002, Revenue Officer Stevens hand delivered three notices of l

Greenfield qualified under section 6015 for relief from any joint and several tax liability for 1982.

On March 24, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015 for 1999 and 2000, in which he denied petitioner's request for relief .

However, section 6015 would allow the petitioner to file an election for spousal relief under section 6015.4 Once the section 6015 election is filed, the restriction on respondent’s collection action imposed by section 6015(e)(1)(B) would go into effect.

determined deficiencies as follows: Year Amount 1992 $14,227 1993 13,146 1994 9,856 Petitioner does not challenge the amount of the deficiency for any of the years in issue. Instead, petitioner claims relief from the deficiency for each year under section 6015. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Delaware. The circumstances surrounding the determinations of the above-referenced deficiencies are summarized

This case arises from a request for relief under section 6015 ( f) with respect to petitioner ' s 2002 taxable year .

Petitioner does not qualify for section 6015 relief, because he admits to receiving and failing to report the items of income .

Discussion Relief From Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015 Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return .

The notice stated that petitioner had been given notice of and an opportunity to participate in the action on his former spouse's - 5 - section 6015 claim, that he had not responded, and that he had admitted receiving the notices but ignored them because contesting them might affect his child custody battle .

) . The settlement officer forwarded Ms . Hollen's Form 8857 to the IRS innocent spouse unit . On October 18, 2005, the IRS innocent spouse unit notified the settlement officer that it had concluded that Ms . Hollen was not entitled to relief under section 6015 . Thereafter, the settle- ment officer began to prepare her determination with respect to the notice of intent to levy and the notice of tax .lien . On October 20, 2005, the settlement officer called (October 20, 2005 call) Ms . Hollen an

r litigation in this Court in which P stipulated she was not entitled to relief under former sec. 6013(e), I.R.C. 1986. After t-his stipulation was filed and before this Court issued its first opinion in the earlier litigation, the Congress enacted sec. 6015 (b) and (c) , I . R. C . 1986, which provides . avenues of relief that were not available. under the former statute. The Congress also enacted sec. 6015(g) (2), I.R.C. 1986, which provides that a final court decision "shall be conclusive" ex

r shall pay a late charge of 2 percent per 1 Petitioner and his wife, Margot Hahn, filed a joint 1995 Federal income tax return and a joint petition with the Court. Petitioner Margot Hahn now seeks relief from joint and several liability pursuant to sec. 6015, and each petitioner has retained separate counsel. Petitioner Margot Hahn did not join petitioner Gilbert Hahn, Jr. in making the instant motion. - 3 - annum in excess of the aforementioned interest rate; and (4) in the event petitioner de

--SERVED MAY 2 2 2007 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge : This case arises from a petition for judicial review filed in response to a determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 .1 The issue for decision is whether denial by respondent of petitioner's request for relief from joint and several liability for the taxable years 1997 and 1999 constitutes an abuse of discretion .

from joint and several liability under section 6015(b), (c), or (f) with respect to the entire amount of each of the above tax deficiencies determined by respondent . Intervenor Glenn Evans (Glenn) objects to petitioner's right to any relief under section 6015 . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in St . Cloud, Minnesota . On October 10, 1987, Glenn and petitioner were married . In 1988, petitioner re

submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. Petitioners argued that the proposed levies were inappropriate, that an offer-in- compromise should be accepted, and that Mr. Andrews was entitled to innocent spouse relief under section 6015. Petitioners’ case was assigned to Settlement Officer Linda Cochran (Ms. Cochran). Ms. Cochran scheduled a telephone section 6330 hearing for March 17, 2004. During the hearing, 6 The FPAAs and other information specific to TBS 84-2’s, D

) SERVED AUG - 8 2007 - 2 - final determination denying her relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the tax years 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 .

submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. Petitioners argued that the proposed levies were inappropriate, that an offer-in- compromise should be accepted, and that Mrs. Freeman was entitled to innocent spouse relief under section 6015. On November 14, 2003, petitioners’ case was assigned to Settlement Officer Linda Cochran (Ms. Cochran). Ms. Cochran scheduled a telephone section 6330 hearing for March 31, 2004. Petitioners’ representative, Terri A. Merriam (Ms. Merria

The parties agree that any request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 by petitioner wife should - 4 - not be determined in this case but should be determined separately.

In February 2006, Suzanne filed a request for innocent-spouse relief under section 6015 with the Commissioner.

e is not entitled to innocent spouse relief when the requesting spouse has entered into a closing agreement that disposes of the same liability. See sec. 1.6015- 1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. A closing agreement entered into before the effective date of sec. 6015, however, does not cut off a claim for innocent spouse relief under that section. Hopkins v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 451 (2003). Under the former innocent spouse relief statute, sec. 6013(e), a closing agreement, even one that determined lia

Petitioner initially raised a spousal defense under section 6015, but abandoned this argument because he did not file joint tax returns for the years at issue.

proceeding in order to determine the correct amount of a net operating loss carryback from 1987 to 1985 and 1986. See sec. 6214(b). Also raised as an issue herein is whether petitioner Martha McHan is eligibile for relief from joint liability under section 6015. That issue has been severed from the issues tried and addressed in this opinion. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioners were married in 1966 and remained so as of the date of trial. At the time the petition was filed in this case, petitioners wer

able under either subsection (b) or (c). See Washington v. Commissioner, 3 While the petitio was filed before the notice of determination issued on June 18, 2004, the petition appears to have been filed on a date that is 6 months after the date the sec. 6015 election was made. See sec. 6015(e)(1)(A)(i) (II). Neither party has questioned jurisdiction with respect to 1998, 1999, or 2000 in this respect. - 5 - 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003). Thus, petitioner's only claim is that she is entitled to eq

of $27,847 . No notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner's spouse because of her prior concession of the deficiency . In his petition to this Court, petitioner does not challenge the deficiency and seeks only relief from joint liability under section 6015 . At trial, petitioner and respondent filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues wherein petitioner conceded the deficiency of $27,847 . Respondent, in turn, conceded that petitioner was entitled to relief from joint liability for the year at

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 3 Petitioner W. Bradford Davis attached to his pretrial memorandum a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Mr. Davis did not file any briefs with the Court, and the petition makes no reference to sec. 6015 relief. The record does not establish that he ever filed a Form 8857 with respondent. Therefore, assuming that Mr. Davis has even raised the issue, we find that he has abandoned his claim for sec. 6015 relief. See Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 9

o a shelf corporation identified as Cashmere . The Kanters also appealed the Court's denial of their motions to make the Couvillion report part of the record in their cases, and Naomi R . Kanter appealed issues related to her claims for relief under section 6015 . At the same time, Ballard appealed his cases to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Estate of Lisle appealed its cases to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . In Ballard v. Commissioner, 321 F.3d 1037 (11th C

Zamanizadeh indicated that she wished to seek relief under section 6015, which is commonly referred to as innocent spouse relief .

In addition to interest abatement, in section 6330 proceedings taxpayers also may request section 6015 relief.

This can lead to harsh results, and so section 6015 lets a spouse ask for relief from joint and several liability on three grounds.

Schwersensky's entitlement to relief under section 6015 is irrelevant to this case, which concerns only whether respondent may proceed with his collection action against petitioner.¹° The remaining arguments raised by petitioner are nothing more than tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish.¹¹ We do not address such arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations of precedent,

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge: Petitioner seeks review of respondent’s notices of determination denying petitioner relief under section 6015 from joint liability for tax deficiencies for 1996 and 1997 of $1,552 and $1,515, respectively.

In some cases, however, section 6015 can provide relief from that liability.

More specifically, the issue is whether petitioner’s claim for section 6015 relief is barred based on respondent’s determination that petitioner’s claim for relief was filed more than 2 years after the first collection activity was undertaken toward collection of petitioner’s 1997 unpaid tax.

00 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1952); Casey v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 224, 227 (1949); Bonner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-435; Ballenger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1955-171). Relief from joint and several liability is available to certain taxpayers under section 6015. There are three avenues for relief available under this section–-section 6015(b), (c), (f). In reaching the decision at the administrative level in this case, the Appeals officer denied relief under subsections (b) and (c) finding that

h spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 188 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). Relief from joint and several liability is available to certain taxpayers under section 6015. Under section 6015(c), an individual who is eligible and so elects, may limit his or her liability to the portion of a deficiency that is properly allocable to the taxpayer as provided in section 6015(d). Sec. 6015(c)(1). Under section

not establish that an offer- in-compromise was a viable collection alternative. On January 29, 2004, the Appeals Office issued to Barbara Drake a Final Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under I.R.C. sec. 6015, denying the requested relief. This Court dismissed Barbara Drake’s 8(...continued) (2) the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7 or 11 of this title. Respondent contends that tax debt is not considered co

h Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-522; Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1989); Laird v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-564. These cases involved relief from joint and several liability on a joint return pursuant to former sec. 6013 and sec. 6015 rather than relief under sec. 66. However, we believe that interpretations of spousal relief from joint liability are instructive to our interpretation of equitable relief from community income. See, e.g., Beck v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2

- 2 - The motion arises in the context of a petition filed in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action under section 6330 sent to petitioners and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint liability under section 6015 sent to Ms.

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner, who filed a 1998 joint Federal income tax return with intervenor, signed that return under duress; if not, then (2) whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015;1 if not, then (3) whether petitioner’s failure to file a timely 1998 return was due to reasonable cause; and (4) whether the underpayment of tax required to be shown on petitioner’s 1998 return is a substantial understatement of income t

- 2 - The motion arises in the context of a petition filed after respondent failed to issue a notice of final determination concerning relief from joint liability under section 6015 within 6 months after receiving petitioner’s Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.

TICK 124 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PATRICIA M. FRIDAY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6325-04. Filed May 12, 2005. P filed a petition seeking relief from joint and several tax liability under sec. 6015, I.R.C., and R moved for summary judgment. R then moved to withdraw his summary judgment motion. The Court granted the motion to withdraw. R also moved the Court to "remand" this matter to R's office that specializes in sec. 6015, I.R.C., cases for

On September 14, 2003, petitioner requested from respondent relief under section 6015 as to each subject year .

Petitioner contends that since the repeal of former section 6015 in 1984, there is no “authority” to impose an addition to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments but makes no other argument regarding the application of section 6654.

.C. 191, 200 n.4 (1993). The district court in England v. United States, 760 F. Supp. 186 (D. Kan. 1991) (which was appealable to the Tenth Circuit) apparently had reached the same conclusion, as it did not rely on Weigand in its analysis. 8 Former sec. 6015 required individuals in certain circumstances to file annual declarations of estimated income tax. - 14 - facts and circumstances of the case in concluding that the Form 4868 remittance at issue constituted a deposit rather than a payment. I

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Gerber, Chief Judge: Respondent issued a notice of determination to petitioner denying her request for relief under section 6015 and specifically finding that she was ineligible for relief under section 6015(b), (c), or (f).

r sons reached the requisite age for a driver’s license, she purchased a car for him. The specific dates for the above occurrences cannot be determined, and it is not clear whether the events occurred before or after petitioner made her request for section 6015 relief. Petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief is dated July 12, 2000. It was received by respondent on July 17, 2000. In her request, petitioner seeks only “equitable relief” from income tax liabilities for the years 1995, 1996, an

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability with respect to joint returns filed with Barry Trupin (Trupin) for 1982 through 1986.

The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint liability under section 6015 for 2001 Federal income taxes.2 Some of the facts were stipulated.

ION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 and a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015. The issue for decision is whether there was an abuse of discretion in issuing the notices of determination - 2 - without conducting a hearing requested by petitioners under section 6330. Unless otherwise indicated, all section reference

- 2 - Respondent determined that petitioner was not eligible for section 6015 relief from joint and several liability for 1995 and 1997.

Section 6015 allows an individual to seek relief from joint and several liability on a joint return. Section 6015(c) allows proportionate tax relief through allocation of the deficiency between individuals who filed a joint return. Respondent met with petitioner and intervenor. Based on that interview and documents provided, respondent concluded th

Additionally, petitioner Carol DelVecchio claimed relief from joint liability under section 6015 as to the liability underlying both the lien and levy.

in making this statement. Although petitioner stated during the trial that she is not claiming that she is an “innocent spouse”, there is no indication in the record that petitioner knew about, or intended to waive, her right to request relief under sec. 6015 regarding the Rowe adjustments. Consequently, if respondent intends to hold petitioner liable for the Rowe adjustments, we shall give petitioner the opportunity to file a request for relief under sec. 6015 before we enter a decision in this

Sjodin testified that petitioner’s application for relief under section 6015 was the result of advice from the family’s accountant as part of his estate planning.

ng the election, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for the taxable year of the joint return. Sec. 6013(d)(3). A spouse may, however, seek relief from joint and several liability by following procedures established in section 6015. - 6 - Under section 6015(b), a taxpayer may be relieved from liability on a joint return if, among other things: SEC. 6015(b). Procedures For Relief From Liability Applicable to All Joint Filers.-- (1) In general.--Under procedures pres

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced under section 6015 for review of respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 with respect to joint income tax returns that she filed with her former husband.

sented relevant documents to the Appeals officer. Here, petitioner did not provide any evidence during the administrative process to support his claim that he settled his case several years prior to the assessments. His spouse was given relief under section 6015. In any event, as in Beagles, we conclude that the delays involved in this case were not attributable to ministerial acts. Relief given administratively in different circumstances does not establish abuse of discretion. See Fargo v. Comm

In their request petitioners contended: “The tax liability figures are still incorrect based on inaccurate figuring of tax amounts paid and failure to credit excess tax payments towards amounts owed on other tax years.” Petitioners also raised a section 6015 defense with respect to - 10 - petitioner Cathy A.

in making this statement. Although petitioner stated during the trial that she is not claiming that she is an “innocent spouse”, there is no indication in the record that petitioner knew about, or intended to waive, her right to request relief under sec. 6015 regarding the Rowe adjustments. Consequently, if respondent intends to hold petitioner liable for the Rowe adjustments, we shall give petitioner the opportunity to file a request for relief under sec. 6015 before we enter a decision in this

Of course, we may be asked to review whether the Appeals officer correctly applied the law, e.g., whether he correctly interpreted some provision of section 6015, which provides relief from joint and several liability on joint returns.

Federal income tax returns. Each return showed that she was due a refund. Respondent applied these overpayments to the amount not paid on the 1997 tax liability. Discussion A requesting spouse may elect relief from joint and several liability under section 6015. There are three types of relief available: (1) Section 6015(b)(1) provides full relief from joint and several liability; (2) section 6015(c) provides separate tax liability available to divorced or separated taxpayers; and (3) section 6

Dixon); and (2) a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under Section 6015 sent to Ms.

- 2 - This case is before the Court on petitioner’s petition to review respondent’s denial of relief under section 6015 with respect to petitioner’s 1992 and 1993 taxable years.

I never received any tax bill or assessment with the statutory time period.” On January 31, 2002, an Appeals officer issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under section 6015 for petitioner’s 1994 tax year.

facto representative, Mrs. Campos has a sufficiently close relationship with Mr. Campos to justify her recognition as next friend. Finally, although we recognize that conflicts of interest may arise between spouses filing joint returns (see, e.g., sec. 6015), we are persuaded on this record that Mrs. Campos will represent the best interests of Mr. Campos in this proceeding.3 Consistent with the preceding discussion, and considering all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that this is an ap

ial review of the decision.5 Id.; cf. sec. 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-I5, Proced. & Admin. Regs. (taxpayer may in certain cases contest in court the Appeals officer’s decision in an equivalent hearing to deny a claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015). Under the facts herein, where Appeals issued the decision letter to petitioner in response to his timely request for a Hearing, we conclude that the “decision” reflected in the decision letter issued to petitioner is a “determination”

during the audit process that resulted in the expenses allowed shown above. Prior to issuance of the notice of deficiency, Mrs. Franklin applied for and was administratively granted relief from joint liability for the 1996 tax year, presumably under sec. 6015. None of the documentation surrounding Mrs. Franklin's relief was offered into evidence, and petitioner raised no objection in this case toward the granting of relief to his spouse. Respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency to Mrs. Fr

esidence without approval of a Federal District Court.3 For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent's motion for summary judgment. An appropriate order and decision will be entered. 3 Also, we note that this case does not involve a claim under sec. 6015 for relief from joint and several liability, and the general rule set forth herein is not intended to control the issue of whether such a claim under sec. 6015 may be raised in a collection proceeding under sec. 6330(d)(1) for the first tim

Gurr (petitioner) is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the years at issue.4 More specifically, petitioner seeks relief under section 6015(b), alternatively, limited liability relief under section 6015(c), and, in the further alternative, relief under section 3 After the case was heard and taken under advisement, Keith L.

ies should lie with her, claiming that she was the innocent victim of an abusive marital situation that unfairly left her holding the bag for the 1988 liability. On reply brief, however, petitioner concedes that she does not qualify for relief under section 6015. Given that petitioner has conceded liability for the underlying tax, it follows that interest properly accrued on that liability for the 7 In fact, as previously noted, petitioner’s Social Security number did appear on the notices, whic

of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: 1Respondent has conceded that petitioner Teresa M. Baldwin (Mrs. Baldwin) qualifies for relief from joint liability under sec. 6015. Other assignments of error raised in the petitions and not addressed in the stipulations of settled issues or on brief are deemed conceded. See Rule 151(e)(4) and (5); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683 (1989); Money v. Commissione

cordingly, we denied petitioner’s motions for continuance and to compel production of documents. 2 At the Appeals hearing, petitioner also sought to raise the argument that his wife should be granted relief from liability as an innocent spouse under sec. 6015. The Appeals officer did not consider that issue because Mrs. Klawonn had not requested a hearing. Petitioner made no claim in his petition regarding that issue, and so we have not considered it further here. - 8 - stated above, we conclude

of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: 1Respondent has conceded that petitioner Teresa M. Baldwin (Mrs. Baldwin) qualifies for relief from joint liability under sec. 6015. Other assignments of error raised in the petitions and not addressed in the stipulations of settled issues or on brief are deemed conceded. See Rule 151(e)(4) and (5); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683 (1989); Money v. Commissione

proach taken by the parties at trial. We hasten to add that if we had taken the other approach, our decision in this case would not have been different in any regard. We also hasten to add that petitioners expressly declined to raise any issue under sec. 6015. 3 The note, which was recourse in form, contemplated payments of interest only for the first 5 years. As matters actually transpired, in 1989, the limited partners were given the option of paying a steeply discounted percentage of the prin

See Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 41 (1995). Section 6015(e)(1) contains the same parenthetical language as section 6330(d)(1)(A); however, this same parenthetical language does not provide the Court with unlimited jurisdiction over section 6015 cases. Our jurisdiction to review section 6015 cases is not unlimited--in some cases the district court or United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction and the Tax Court does not. Sec. 6015(e)(3)(C). Similarly, the language of

It provides that a - 12 - requesting partner must file his request for a consistent settlement offer with the Internal Revenue Service office that entered into the settlement on or before (i) the 150th day after the day on which the FPAA was mailed to the TMP, or (ii) the 60th day after the day on which the settle

ted by her in the amount of $5,670, and the reason for reporting such income was solely for the purpose of claiming an earned income credit under section 32. With respect to the tax on that income, petitioner claims relief from joint liability under section 6015. Respondent agrees, while not making any concession, that the issue is appropriate but cannot now be considered by the Court for the reason that respondent had no knowledge prior to trial that petitioner intended to claim relief from joi

It provides that a - 12 - requesting partner must file his request for a consistent settlement offer with the Internal Revenue Service office that entered into the settlement on or before (i) the 150th day after the day on which the FPAA was mailed to the TMP, or (ii) the 60th day after the day on which the settle

- 6 - Estimated Tax Requirement Petitioner also contends that there is no “enabling legislation” requiring payment of estimated taxes since the repeal of former section 6015 in 1984.

ciencies relating thereto. OPINION Generally, taxpayers filing joint Federal income tax returns are jointly and severally liable for all taxes due. See sec. 6013(d)(3). Certain taxpayers, however, may be relieved of joint and several liability under section 6015. Michael claims that he is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under the traditional rule of section 6015(b) and also under the separate liability election of section 6015(c). Michael makes no claim for equitable relief u

In addition to asserting that respondent erred in the determinations set forth in the notice of deficiency, petitioners claimed that Cyndie was entitled to relief under section 6015 with respect to deficiencies (including interest, penalties, and other amounts) attributable to understatements of income by Phillip.

int motion to submit the case under Rule 122, and a letter to respondent requesting that she be dismissed from the instant case. 3 We note, however, that petitioner Kathryn Kees is still free to seek relief under the new “innocent spouse” provision, sec. 6015, added to the Code by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734. - 4 - In January 1987, petitioner suffered a concussion when he slipped on ice in the driveway of his resi

§ 6015 for the 1992 taxable year." On November 16, 1998, following the filing of respondent's opening brief, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that his ailments were preventing him from preparing and filing a reply brief, and that "if the Court would see fit to grant a dismissal it would be an act of mercy for which [petitioner] wo

Following passage of section 6015 by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.

More significantly, petitioner did not file a declaration of estimated Federal individual income tax pursuant to the requirements of section 6015.6 A review of the section 6015 requirements in effect at the time of the $31,000 payment reveals that petitioner was not required to file a declaration of estimated tax.