Innocent spouse rules provide relief.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

* The new relief provisions are a response to congressional concerns that the former provisions were inadequate.

* An eligible spouse can now make an innocent spouse or separate liability election or seek equitable relief.

* The Sec. 6015 provisions apply without regard to community property laws.

The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 ushered in a new era of taxpayer-favorable innocent spouse relief. Three avenues of relief are offered under new Sec. 6015. This article explains the provisions, compares the new and old law and offers clarifying examples.

The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (IRSRRA '98), Section 3201, substantially changed the Code's innocent spouse relief provisions by (1) enacting Sec. 6015, (2) repealing Sec. 6013(e) and (3) amending Secs. 66(c) and 6230(c)(5). Prior law had limited innocent spouse relief to large tax understatements and "grossly erroneous" items. Sec. 6015, which makes innocent spouse relief easier to obtain, was later clarified by Section 4002(c) of the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 (TTREA '98). For certain innocent spouse claims fried before Dec. 7, 1998, a Taxpayer Advocate Directive(1) ordered abatement of penalties.

Sec. 6015 and the amendments to Secs. 66(c) and 6230(c)(5) are effective for tax liabilities arising after (or unpaid as of) July 22,1998. Because Sec. 6015 applies to all unpaid tax liabilities, even if the taxpayer was not eligible for innocent spouse relief under former Sec. 6013(e), the IRS is currently receiving approximately 1,000 innocent spouse relief claims per week.(2)

Background

In recent years, Congress became concerned that the existing innocent spouse provisions were inadequate. According to the IRSRRA '98 Conference Report,(3) Congress thought the law deficient in the following respects:

1. Limiting innocent spouse relief only to large understatements and grossly erroneous items was inappropriate.

2. It was unclear whether partial relief could be granted for part of an understatement.

3. Spouses who were no longer married, legally separated or lived apart should be able to elect to limit their tax liability to the tax attributable to their income and to items of which they had knowledge.

4. Taxpayers were not adequately informed of their right to apply for innocent spouse relief and did not have a means to apply for it.

5. The Tax Court did not have jurisdiction to review all denials of relief.

Reform

The IRSRRA '98 responded to these perceived deficiencies by:

1. Eliminating understatement thresholds, allowing relief for items that are only "erroneous" and providing three methods for obtaining innocent spouse relief.

2. Allowing relief on an apportioned basis.

3. Allowing a separation of tax liability for taxpayers who are no longer married, are legally separated or live apart.

4. Requiring that taxpayers be notified of joint and several liability and the innocent spouse provisions and providing a form to apply.

5. Allowing the Tax Court to review denied applications for relief and order refunds for tax overpayments.

6. Extending equitable relief to married taxpayers in community property states.

7. Conforming the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) proceedings requirements to the new innocent spouse rules.

Exhibit 1 on p. 30 summarizes the innocent spouse relief requirements and compares the former Sec. 6013(e) requirements to new Sec. 6015.

[TABULAR DATA 1 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Relief Categories

Sec. 6015 provides three categories of innocent spouse relief:(1) innocent spouse election; (2) separate liability election; and (3) equitable relief. The innocent spouse and separate liability elections can only be made for proposed or assessed deficiencies; they do not apply to tax liabilities properly reported on a return, but unpaid. According to the Conference Report,(4) the Sec. 6015(f) equitable relief method may be available for such unpaid liabilities.

Although not provided for in Sec. 6015, Notice 98-61(5) states that if a taxpayer signed a joint return involuntarily while under duress, the signature is not valid and a joint return was not made. Therefore, the taxpayer is not jointly and severally liable for that return's tax liability and Sec. 6015 does not apply.

Innocent Spouse Election

Sec. 6015(b)(1) allows an innocent spouse to elect relief from any tax understatement (including interest and penalties) attributable to an erroneous item of his spouse if (1) a joint return was filed, (2) the innocent spouse did not know and had no reason to know of the understatement, (3) it would be inequitable to hold the innocent spouse liable for the tax and (4) such relief is elected within two years after the IRS began collection activities (e.g., levy, garnishment of wages) against the taxpayer making the election.

The understatement is no longer required to be substantial and items are no longer required to be grossly' erroneous. In addition, any disallowed deduction, credit or basis will qualify for relief; it is no longer necessary for these items to have no basis in law or fact. "Erroneous items" include deductions for fictitious or nondeductible expenses. Sec. 6015(b)(3) refers to the Sec. 6662(d)(2)(A) definition of "understatement" which is the excess of the tax required to be shown on a return over the tax actually shown. According to the Senate Report,(6) the election does not extend the statute of limitations (SOL). Under Sec. 6015(g) (2), the IRS must notify the taxpayer's spouse of the election and must allow him to participate in the determination of the relief granted.

Apportioned relief: Sec. 6015 (b) (2) allows apportioned relief if the taxpayer meets all of the sec. 6015(b)(1) requirements, except that he knew or had reason to know of an understatement. The taxpayer will be relieved only of the portion of the tax attributable to the understatement for which he did not know or had no reason to know of the extent of the understatement.

Example: H and W reported $30,000 of taxable income on their joint return and paid $4,500 of tax. An audit revealed that W did not report $10,000 of interest, of which H knew of $3,000; H did not know of, had no reason to know of and received no benefit from, the other $7,000 of interest. His eligible for innocent spouse relief for $1,050 of the liability. This is the difference between (1) the $6,000 tax on $40,000 of taxable income ($30,000 reported + $10,000 unreported) and (2) the $4,950 tax on $33,000 of taxable income ($30,000 reported + $3,000 Unreported income H knew of).

Separate Liability Election

Sec. 6015(c) allows taxpayers who meet the innocent spouse election requirements and who (1) are no longer married (or are widowed), (2) have not been a member of the same household during the past 12 months or (3) are legally separated, to make an additional election to limit their tax liability in deficiency situations. TTREA '98 Section 4002(c)(1) and (2) amended Secs. 6015 (e) (3) (A) and 7421(a) to clarify that the separate liability election applies only to deficiencies and affects only the amount of the taxpayer's deficiency. The Senate Report(7) explains that the election cannot be used to create a refund, direct a refund to a spouse or allocate responsibility for payment of a reported (but unpaid) tax; thus, the ability to obtain a credit or refund is limited to the innocent spouse election and the equitable relief provisions.

According to the Conference Report,(8) the purpose of the election is to limit an innocent spouse's liability for unpaid taxes to the taxes attributable to him and to the items of which he had knowledge. The election, however, should not allow taxpayers to knowingly sign false returns or transfer assets to avoid tax; thus, the election is not available:

1. To either spouse, if assets were transferred between the spouses as part of a fraudulent scheme.

2. To the portion of an understatement not allocable to the electing spouse, but attributable to an item of which the taxpayer had knowledge at the time the return was signed, unless signed under duress. The Conference Report(9) requires that the innocent spouse have "actual knowledge" that an item on the return was incorrect. This knowledge must be based on evidence and cannot be inferred based on indications that the innocent spouse had a reason to know.

In addition, the innocent spouse's tax liability is increased by the value of any property received from the other spouse, if the principal purpose of the transfer was to avoid taxes. Property transfers made within one year before the earlier of the (1) payment due date or (2) date of the first proposed deficiency notice are deemed made for tax avoidance purposes, unless the taxpayer can prove otherwise.(10) However, transfers pursuant to a divorce or separate maintenance decree are not so deemed.

The separate liability election applies to all unpaid Subtitle A taxes, including income and self-employment (SE) taxes and the alternative minimum tax (AMT).(11)The election must be made no later than two years after collection activities against the taxpayer have begun. The mailing of a deficiency notice and a payment demand to the electing spouse's last known address, addressed to both spouses, does not constitute a collection activity that triggers eligibility for the election.(12) Neither Sec. 6015 nor the Committee Reports indicate the earliest date that the election can be made.

To protect divorced and separated taxpayers from potential tax liabilities attributable to their spouses, a separate liability election should be considered at the time of divorce or separation. Both spouses may make the election for the same return.

Allocation of income, deductions and tax payments: Income and deductions are to be allocated between spouses according to the allocation rules used when a married couple files separate returns. The Senate Report(13) states that the ability to collect a deficiency from a spouse should not affect the allocation. Sec. 6015(d) and the Conference Report(14) provide the following guidelines:

1. Items based on joint return status (e.g., taxable Social Security) and deductions (e.g., education loan interest) and credits (e.g., dependent care, adoption, Hope, lifetime learning, elderly and disabled and earned income) that require the filing of a joint return are treated as though a joint return had been fried; these items are then allocated between the spouses (Sec. 6015(d)(4)).

2. If a child's income has been included in the parents' joint return, the child's tax liability is (1) disregarded in calculating the parents' separate liabilities and (2) allocated "appropriately" between the parents. Neither the Code nor the Committee Reports provide how this allocation is to be made (Sec. 6015(d)(5)).

3. An item may be allocated to a spouse to the extent of the tax benefit received (Sec. 6015(d)(3)(B)).

4. Community property rules are disregarded (Sec. 6015 (a), flush language).

5. If a spouse did not know or did not have mason to know of an item and it would be inequitable to hold him responsible for the unpaid tax or deficiency, the item will be allocated to the other spouse.(15)

Example: The joint return of H and W, who are legally separated, is audited. The audit reveals that H had $30,000 of unreported income, of which W knew of $20,000. Although His liable for the tax on the $30,000, the tax on the $20,000 of which W had knowledge can be collected from either H or W. The tax on the $10,000 unreported income of which W had no knowledge can be collected only from H.

6. The IRS may distribute, apportion or allocate items between the spouses in cases of fraud (Sec. 6015(d)(3)(C)).

The Senate Report(16) states that items are to be allocated as follows:

1. Income items follow the source of the income. Thus, wage income is allocated to the spouse who performs the work and receives the Form W-2. Capital gains and business and investment income are allocated to the owner of the business or investment, according to his ownership percentage. If ownership is held as joint tenants, the income will be allocated equally, unless evidence supports a different allocation.

2. As for deductions and losses, business deductions are allocated based on the business ownership percentage. Personal deductions are allocated equally between the spouses, unless evidence supports a different allocation. Losses and deductions are allocated to a spouse only to the extent of his income; remaining losses and deductions are allocated to the other spouse.

3. Income tax withholding is allocated to the spouse from whom it was withheld. Estimated tax payments are allocated to the spouse who made the payments. If made jointly, the payments will be allocated equally, unless evidence supports a different allocation.

Allocation of tax deficiencies: Sec. 6015(d) provides that a deficiency assessed after an IRS audit is allocated:

1. To the spouse who reported the item that produced the deficiency.

2. Between spouses based or the proportion of the net amount of the items that produced the deficiency, if the deficiency is attributable to both spouses.(17)

Example: The joint return of H and W, who are divorced, is audited. A deficiency is assessed on $50,000 of unreported income; 20% ($10,000) is attributable to W and 80% ($40,000) is attributable to H. Thus, W is liable for 20% of the deficiency; His liable for 80%. According to the Conference Report,(18) if the deficiency is attributable to disallowed miscellaneous itemized deductions, the allocation will not change, even though part of the expense was not deducted (due to the 2%-of-adjusted-gross-income limit).

3. First as described in #1 above, then as described in #2 above, if a deficiency is (1) attributable to a disallowed credit or (2) a tax other than income tax or AMT (Sec. 6015(d)(2)).(19)

Example: The joint return of H and W, who are divorced, is audited. The audit reveals that H had $8,000 in unreported SE income; W had $2,000 in unreported interest income. A $4,000 deficiency is assessed, consisting of $1,200 in SE taxes and $2,800 of income tax. The $1,200 of SE tax is first allocated to H (step #1). The $2,800 income tax deficiency is then allocated 80% (H's unreported income/total unreported income) to H and 20% to W (step #2).

4. In the case of a denial of a deduction or credit, to the spouse to whom the deduction or credit is allocated, limited to the amount of income or tax offset by the deduction or credit. The remaining liability is allocated to the other spouse.(20)

Example: The joint return of H and W, who are legally separated, is audited; $10,000 of SE expenses are disallowed. H had reported $18,000 of SE gross income. H's share of the tax on the return was reduced by all of the expenses subsequently disallowed; thus, H is liable for the entire deficiency. However, had H reported $8,000 of SE gross income and $10,000 of SE expenses, he would have received a tax benefit from only $8,000 of the expenses. (The remaining $2,000 of expenses offset $2,000 of W's income.) If the expenses are subsequently disallowed, H will be liable for 80% ($8,000 of the disallowed expenses allocated to H/$10,000 of total disallowed expenses) of the deficiency; W will be liable for the remaining 20%.

Burden of proof: Taxpayers have the burden of proving the portion of a deficiency allocable to them. However, the IRS must prove, if applicable, that (1) assets were transferred between the spouses as part of a fraudulent scheme and/or (2) the taxpayer had actual knowledge of the item that resulted in a deficiency.(21)

Equitable Relief

Sec. 6015(f) allows innocent spouse relief when (1) relief is not available under the Sec. 6015(b) innocent spouse or the Sec. 6015(c) separate liability provisions and (2) taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable for a taxpayer to be held liable for a joint return's unpaid tax or deficiency. Sec. 6015(g) directs Treasury to provide appropriate procedures. Notice 98-61, which provides interim guidance for this relief, was effective on Dec. 7, 1998 and can be relied on until permanent guidance is issued.(22)

Notice 98-61: To be considered for equitable relief, a taxpayer must:

1. Have fried a joint return.

2. Not be eligible for an innocent spouse or separate liability election.

3. Apply for relief no later than two years after the IRS's first collection activity after July 22, 1998 has begun against him.

4. Have an unpaid tax liability when relief is requested. However, a refund can be requested for (1) amounts paid after July 23,1998 and before April 16, 1999, and (2) installment payments made after July 22,1998, for installment agreements not in default, made after relief is requested.

5. Not have transferred to or received from the other spouse assets as part of a fraudulent scheme.

6. Not have received property (or a right to property) with the principal purpose of avoiding tax or the payment of tax. If such property is received, relief is available only to the extent that the tax liability exceeds the value of the property received.

7. Not have fried the joint return with fraudulent intent.

Relief is limited to:

1. The tax liability shown on the return prior to an adjustment that results in a tax understatement.

2. The unpaid tax liability attributable to the other spouse.

3. The extent to which the tax liability exceeds the value of property received from the other spouse, if the principal purpose of the property transfer was to avoid tax or the payment of tax.

The IRS will ordinarily grant equitable relief when:

1. At the time the joint return was fried, the tax was unpaid.

2. At the time the joint return was filed, the taxpayer did not know and had no reason to know that the tax would not be paid. The taxpayer must establish that it was reasonable for him to believe that the other spouse would pay the tax. (If the taxpayer did not know or had no reason to know that a portion of the tax would not be paid, the taxpayer will be granted relief for that portion only.)

3. At the time relief is requested, the taxpayer (1) is no longer married to or is legally separated from his spouse or (2) has not lived with his spouse during the past 12 months.

4. The taxpayer would suffer undue hardship (as defined in Kegs. Sec. 1.6161-1 (b)) if relief were not granted.

For (1) married taxpayers filing separately in a community property state who request relief under Sec. 66(c) and (2) taxpayers who meet the seven requirements above to be considered for equitable relief, but do not satisfy the four criteria above required for the IRS to grant it, relief may be granted under Sec. 6015(f) or 66(c) if it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for the unpaid tax or deficiency. Factors supporting relief include whether:

1. The taxpayer is legally separated, divorced or living apart from the other spouse.

2. The taxpayer would suffer hardship (even though not undue hardship) if relief were not granted.

3. The spouse abused the taxpayer (that did not constitute duress).

4. The spouse has a legal obligation under a divorce decree or agreement to pay the tax.

Factors supporting a denial of relief include whether:

1. The unpaid tax or deficiency is attributable to the taxpayer.

2. The taxpayer knew of or had reason to know of the unpaid tax or deficiency (unless, in limited situations, the factors supporting relief are unusually strong).

3. The taxpayer had significantly benefited (beyond normal support), as described in Kegs. Sec. 1.6013-5 (b), from the unpaid tax or deficiency.

4. The taxpayer has a legal obligation under a divorce decree or agreement to pay the tax.

Other Affected Provisions

Sec. 66(c)

IRSRRA '98 Section 3201(b) amended Sec. 66(c) to provide equitable relief for married taxpayers in community property states, similar to Sec. 6015(f). It allows the IRS to consider the facts and circumstances and to provide relief when it is not otherwise available.

Sec. 6230

The IRSRRA '98 did not amend Sec. 6230(a)(3), which allows the spouse of a partner involved in a TEFRA proceeding to request an abatement of assessment from either the IRS or the Tax Court. Rather, IRSRRA '98 Section 3201(e)(2) amended Sec. 6230(c)(5)(A) (which allows a partner's spouse to use the innocent spouse defense in a refund claim and suit), by replacing the reference therein to Sec. 6013(e) with one to Sec. 6015. Due to the Overlapping provisions of Secs. 6015 and 6230, it was unclear which should be used in TEFRA proceedings involving innocent spouse relief claims. Letter Ruling 9925040(23) stated that Sec. 6015 applies to both TEFRA and non-TEFRA claims; thus, for all innocent spouse relief claims pertaining to liabilities arising after (or unpaid as of) July 22, 1998, an innocent spouse may choose relief under either Sec. 6230(c)(5) or 6015. However, the ruling recommends that claims be processed under Sec. 6015, because it allows more time to file a claim.

Compliance

IRSRRA '98 Section 3201(c) directed Treasury to develop, no later than 180 days after enactment, a form and instructions to apply for Sec. 6015 relief. Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), was revised in December 1998. The form now-requires taxpayers to provide information about themselves, their spouse or former spouse and to specify the year(s) for which relief is requested. Only one form is fried to request relief for multiple years. The IRS will determine the amounts that qualify for relief after Form 8857 is fried. However, IRS Pub. 971, Innocent Spouse Relief (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), provides worksheets that can be used to determine the tax eligible for relief. For each method of relief requested, taxpayers must attach a statement, which must include:

1. For each erroneous item, the amount, a detailed description and an explanation why the taxpayer had no reason to know about the item. If the taxpayer had knowledge of the item, he must disclose the extent of that knowledge.

2. The amount of tax understatement for which the taxpayer is liable and the amount for which he seeks relief.

3. Why the taxpayer believes it would be unfair to be held liable for the understatement.

The separation of liability statement must include (1) the total amount of the tax understatement and (2) for each item resulting in an understatement, whether the item is attributable to the taxpayer, to his spouse (or former spouse) or to both. The equitable relief statement must include an explanation why it would be unfair to hold the taxpayer liable for the tax.

IRSRRA '98 Section 3201(d) directed Treasury to send separate notices to each individual filing a joint return, if practicable. The Senate Report(24) noted that both spouses must be made aware of their tax situation and that the IRS should not rely on a single notice sent to a single address to inform both spouses.

Pub. 971 explains how to request relief, the community property laws and the three types of innocent spouse relief. It also includes a filled-in Form 8857 and questions and answers. IRSRRA '98 Section 3501 required Treasury to establish procedures, within 180 days of enactment, that would clearly alert married taxpayers of their joint and several liability obligations. The alert is to be in all appropriate publications and instructions, including collection notices and IRS Pub. 1, Your Rights as a Taxpayer.

Tax Court Review

Prior to Sec. 6015(e)'s enactment, the Tax Court had jurisdiction over innocent spouse cases that involved a deficiency, but not a refund claim. Sec. 6015(e) allows taxpayers making the innocent spouse election (involving a refund or a deficiency) or the separate liability election (involving a deficiency) to petition the Tax Court to review any denial of (or failure to rule on) an innocent spouse relief request. Under Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A), the petition must be fried either (1) during the 90-day period that begins on the date a certified or registered notice denying relief is mailed to the taxpayer (provided such notice is mailed during the six-month period after the election was fried) or (2) at any time after six months following the filing of the election and before the close of the 90-day period.

Example: F requests innocent spouse relief on March 1, 2000. A notice denying relief is mailed to F on June 1,2000. F must file a petition with the Tax Court to review the denial within the 90-day period that began on June 1, 2000 (the mailing date). If the denial notice was mailed on Oct. 1, 2000, the petition would have to be filed any time after Sept. 1, 2000 (six months after the request) and before the end of the 90-day period that began on Oct. 1, 2000 (the mailing date).

FSA 9929019(25) clarified that IRS refusal to grant relief under the equitable relief provisions cannot be reviewed by the Tax Court.

Sec. 6015(e)(1)(B)(i) states that, if a taxpayer makes an innocent spouse or a separate liability election, except as provided in Sec. 6851 (termination assessments) or 6861 (jeopardy assessments), neither a levy nor a court proceeding can be made, begun or prosecuted for the collection of an assessment until (1) the end of the 90-day period described above or (2) after the Tax Court's decision is final, if a petition was fried. Rules similar to Sec. 7485 (bond to stay assessment and collection) apply to the assessment collection. Under Sec. 6015(e)(1)03)(ii), the Tax Court can enjoin the collection process only if (1) a timely petition has been fried and (2) the assessment is attributable to the innocent spouse relief provisions. Sec. 6015(e)(2) provides that the Sec. 6502 SOL for assessment collection is suspended during the collection prohibition period and for 60 days thereafter when the taxpayer has timely filed a petition with the Tax Court.

Sec. 6015(e)(3)(A) and (B), as amended by TTREA '98 Section 4002(c)(2), clarifies that refunds and credits can be obtained only for claims associated with the innocent spouse election and the equitable relief provisions. If a prior decision of the Tax Court has become final for the same tax year for which a taxpayer has made an innocent spouse or separate liability election, that decision will remain final, except as to the taxpayer's qualification for innocent spouse relief, if such relief was not considered in the prior decision. If the taxpayer's spouse participated meaningfully in the first Tax Court proceeding, the innocent spouse issue cannot be raised in a later proceeding.

Under Sec. 6015(e)(3)(C), if either spouse filing a joint return brings a tax refund suit, the Tax Court will no longer have jurisdiction over the innocent spouse issue; the court that becomes responsible for the case will have jurisdiction over the petition filed with the Tax Court.

Sec. 6015(e)(4) requires the Tax Court to establish rules to provide an electing taxpayer's spouse with adequate notice and an opportunity to become a party to the innocent spouse proceeding.

Conclusion

The new innocent spouse provisions have broadened the scope of relief from joint and several liability by eliminating many of the requirements that prevented truly innocent spouses from obtaining relief. The new rules and the required notification of the availability of relief will substantially increase the number of taxpayers using these provisions.

(1) IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, Taxpayer Advocate Directive 1998-1.

(2) Remarks of Daniel Wiles, IRS Orifice of Chief Counsel, at American Bar Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA (8/7/99).

(3) See H. Rep't No. 105-599, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998) (hereinafter, "Conference Report"), p. 67 et seq.

(4) Id., p. 72.

(5) Notice 98-61, IRB 1998-51, 13.

(6) S. Rep't No. 105-174, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998) (hereinafter, "Senate Report"), p. 70.

(7) Id., p. 69; see Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 68.

(8) Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 71.

(9) Id; see Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 69.

(10) Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 72.

(11) Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 66.

(12) Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 69.

(13) Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 68.

(14) Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 68.

(15) Id., p. 72.

(16) Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 66 et seq.

(17) Conference Report, note 3 supra, p. 70.

(18) Id.

(19) Id., p. 71.

(20) Id., p. 70.

(21) Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 69.

(22) Notice 99-29, IRB 1999-21, 1, extended the Notice 98-61, note 5 supra, comment period from April 30, 1999 to June 30, 1999.

(23) IRS Letter Ruling (National Office Service Center Advice) 9925040 (4/26/99).

(24) Senate Report, note 6 supra, p. 70.

(25) IRS Letter Ruling (FSA) 9929019 (4/21/99).

Nancy J. Foran, Ph.D., CPA Associate Professor Wichita State University Wichita, KS

Michael F. Foran, Ph.D., CPA, CIA, CMA Professor Wichita State University Wichita, KS