T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-165
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LOUISE COLEMAN, Petitioner, FRED L. NUBIN, Intervenor,
v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2557-04S. Filed December 6, 2004.
Louise Coleman, pro se.
Fred L. Nubin, pro se.
Mindy S. Meigs, for respondent.
PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to
the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time the petition was filed. Unless otherwise
indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue. The decision to be entered is not
reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be
cited as authority.
- 2 -
Respondent issued to petitioner a Final Notice determining
that petitioner was not entitled to allocate the deficiencies for
1989 and 1990 under section 6015(c). Petitioner timely filed her
Petition, and then Fred L. Nubin (intervenor) filed a Notice Of
Intervention. After a concession by respondent that petitioner
is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under
section 6015(c), this Court must decide whether respondent erred
in granting relief to petitioner under section 6015(c).
Most of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are
so found. Petitioner resided in Los Angeles, California, at the
time she filed her petition. Intervenor resided in Thomaston,
Georgia, at the time of the filing of the Notice of Intervention.
On March 19, 1976, petitioner and intervenor were married.
Petitioner was 34 years old, and intervenor was 50 years old at
the time of their marriage. In 1978, a daughter was born to
petitioner and intervenor.
Intervenor started the business activity, Fred Nubin
Building Maintenance, prior to the marriage. The business
provided janitorial services. During their marriage, intervenor
operated the business.
During the 1989 and 1990 taxable years in issue, petitioner
and intervenor were married and living together. During 1989 and
1990, petitioner was not employed on a full-time basis.
Petitioner and intervenor’s divorce was made final on March 3,
- 3 -
1995.
Petitioner and intervenor jointly filed U.S. Individual
Income Tax Returns, Forms 1040, for 1989 and 1990.
Attached to the 1989 joint tax return is a Schedule C,
Profit or Loss From Business. The Schedule C lists the name of
the proprietor as Fred L. Nubin and the name of the business as
Fred Nubin Building Maintenance. Attached to the 1989 joint tax
return is a Schedule SE, Social Security Self-Employment Tax.
This Schedule SE lists the name of the person with self-
employment income as Fred L. Nubin.
No notices of deficiencies were issued by respondent. On
May 21, 1993, Steven A. Kovary, a representative of petitioner
and intervenor, executed a consent to assessment and collection
on behalf of both of them for 1989 and 1990. Petitioner and
Intervenor stipulated that they do not dispute the assessed tax
liabilities and additions to tax with respect to the 1989 and
1990 taxable years. A large part of the liabilities was
attributable to omissions of $28,408 and $23,420 of gross
receipts on the Schedules C attached to the 1989 and 1990
returns, respectively. Respondent also made some minor
adjustments in both years.
Neither petitioner nor intervenor made any voluntary
payments to the Commissioner with respect to their joint income
tax liabilities for 1989 and 1990. Petitioner’s income tax
- 4 -
refunds for the taxable years 2000, 2001, and 2002 were applied
to the joint income tax liability owing for 1989.
On December 2, 2002, respondent received from petitioner a
Form 8857, Request For Innocent Spouse Relief. On January 3,
2003, respondent received from intervenor a Form 12507, Innocent
Spouse Statement. On December 5, 2003, respondent issued to
petitioner a Final Notice denying her request for relief. This
case is based on that Final Notice.
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 that
petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015(c) with
respect to the 1989 and 1990 liabilities remaining unpaid.
When asked during trial whether intervenor was saying
petitioner omitted the income from the returns, he responded:
“No.” Intervenor admitted that petitioner’s only relationship to
the tax returns in question was that she signed the returns. The
record shows that the business was intervenor’s. He was the one
who initially started the business, and he was the one who
carried on the business. Intervenor was the one who reported
self-employment tax. Petitioner testified that intervenor always
- 5 -
brought completed returns home for her to sign. Because
petitioner did nothing other than sign completed returns, it is
obvious that intervenor is the one who omitted substantial
amounts of income when he prepared the returns. There was no
evidence that petitioner had actual knowledge of the omitted
income. Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C). The record contains no reasons or
facts which showed error in respondent’s concession.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be
entered for petitioner.