Innocent spouse relief.In Billings, 127 TC No. 2 (7/25/06), the Tax Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a husband's equitable innocent spouse claim for relief under Sec. 6015(f) from liability arising from his wife's failure to report income she admittedly embezzled em·bez·zle tr.v. em·bez·zled, em·bez·zling, em·bez·zles To take (money, for example) for one's own use in violation of a trust. from her employer. The IRS An abbreviation for the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing internal revenue laws. had not asserted a deficiency against him, which is a prerequisite pre·req·ui·site adj. Required or necessary as a prior condition: Competence is prerequisite to promotion. n. for Tax Court review under Sec. 6015(e). The Service had denied the husband's request for relief for failing to establish that he believed the tax liability was paid or going to be paid at the time he signed an amended return Amended Return A return filed in order to make corrections to a tax return from a previous year. It can be used to correct errors and claim a more advantageous filing. Notes: An amended return is filed using Form 1040X. reporting the embezzled funds. That return showed an increase in tax that neither the taxpayer nor his wife expected to be able to pay. Disposition: The Tax Court, in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over nondeficiency stand-alone petitions, overruled its holding in Ewing, 122 TC 32 (2004). A separate concurring opinion Noun 1. concurring opinion - an opinion that agrees with the court's disposition of the case but is written to express a particular judge's reasoning judgement, legal opinion, opinion, judgment - the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; stated that the court in Ewing disregarded the obvious plain reading of Sec. 6015(e)(1) and that Congress allowed a court to review a petition seeking equitable relief only when the (1) IRS has asserted a deficiency against the individual; (2) individual has affirmatively elected to have Sec. 6015(b) or (c) apply; and (3) taxpayer has timely petitioned to determine the appropriate relief. A dissent stated that the phrase "against whom a deficiency has been asserted" is ambiguous and that the court should have considered the legislative history. Lesli S. Laffie, J.D., LL.M LL.M Legum Magister (Master of Laws) . |
|
||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion