T.C. Memo. 2006-2
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PHYLLIS J. MERENDINO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 8265-04. Filed January 3, 2006.
C. Page Hamrick III, for petitioner.
Stephen J. Neubeck, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: Petitioner challenges respondent’s April 2004
determination that she is not entitled to equitable relief from
joint and several liability under section 6015(f)1 for
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
petitioner’s taxable year 1996. The issue for decision is
whether respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner
such relief. We hold that he did not.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner resided in Aventura, Florida, when she filed the
petition. At all material times, petitioner was, and remains,
married to Dr. John Merendino (Dr. Merendino).
Dr. Merendino’s Sale of Business
In the early 1990s, Dr. Merendino established a business
directed toward providing rehabilitation to elderly disabled
people in nursing homes. In 1995, while Dr. Merendino was in
negotiations to sell his business, the U.S. Department of Justice
(“Justice Department”) was investigating Medicare payments made
to Dr. Merendino. The Justice Department learned of the pending
sale and mandated that the sales proceeds be placed in escrow
pending the final resolution of the matter. On June 12, 1997,
the Justice Department endorsed a settlement agreement
authorizing disbursement of the funds, all of which were applied
to taxes or to settle the civil Medicare case. Ultimately, Dr.
Merendino did not receive any significant portion of the sale
proceeds in cash because the proceeds were held in escrow.
Petitioner’s Relationship With Dr. Merendino
Petitioner and Dr. Merendino (the Merendinos) have been
- 3 -
living apart since at least 1998.2 Petitioner resided in
Aventura, Florida, while her husband resided in Rockville,
Maryland. The Merendinos are not legally separated, nor has
either filed for divorce. In documents petitioner submitted to
respondent with her Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse
Relief, petitioner stated that in the 12-month period preceding
the date she filed her request for innocent spouse relief, Dr.
Merendino was present at her Florida residence for New Year’s
week and for an unspecified number of other days. At the time of
her request for equitable relief, petitioner stated that she
lived with Dr. Merendino during the months of July and August of
1999. Dr. Merendino stated in an affidavit that he traveled to
Florida during that time in an effort to save his marriage. The
Merendinos have a son in his forties who is schizophrenic and
requires assisted care and financial support.
Tax Year 1996
Neither petitioner nor Dr. Merendino, each of whom
individually had taxable income for the year 1996, timely filed a
tax return for 1996. After respondent received information from
third-party payors of payments made to petitioner in 1996,
2
The record is unclear as to exactly when the Merendinos
began living separately. Petitioner testified at trial that she
and Dr. Merendino have been living apart since 1993. However,
petitioner and Dr. Merendino each stated in affidavits that they
have been living apart since 1998. When asked at trial, Dr.
Merendino could not recall exactly how long petitioner has not
resided with him.
- 4 -
respondent contacted the Merendinos concerning the filing of a
tax return. On August 8, 1998, the Merendinos executed Form
2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative,
appointing Robert D. Grossman, Jr. (Mr. Grossman), and David A.
Carris to be their representatives for the 1996 taxable period.
In late December 1998, respondent received a Form 1040, U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, from the Merendinos for the taxable
year 1996 bearing the apparent signatures of both Merendinos, and
reflecting a joint filing status. On December 22, 1998,
respondent’s Revenue Agent Steven Swartz (Mr. Swartz) received a
telephone call from Mr. Grossman instructing Mr. Swartz not to
process the joint return, as the Merendinos were considering
refiling a return reflecting a filing status of married filing
separate (MFS). Mr. Grossman confirmed the communication in a
letter dated December 22, 1998. On January 4, 1999, Mr. Grossman
directed respondent, through Mr. Swartz, to process the received
joint return. The tax shown on the return in the amount of
$405,860 was unpaid.
On January 5, 1999, Mr. Swartz called Mr. Grossman to
inquire about the payment of the 1996 liability. Mr. Grossman
informed Mr. Swartz that the Merendinos would not be sending a
payment on the 1996 liability, but rather would be seeking a
joint offer-in-compromise through respondent’s Baltimore office.
However, in a letter dated February 11, 1999, Mr. Grossman
- 5 -
informed Mr. Swartz: (1) Petitioner had not signed the joint
return; (2) petitioner did not agree to file a joint return; (3)
petitioner would likely file an MFS return; (4) the Merendinos
possessed separate returns that they would like to file; and (5)
respondent should accept the MFS return from petitioner under the
equitable relief provisions of section 6015(f). Mr. Swartz did
not comply with the request to accept the MFS returns because he
believed the regulations specifically prohibited him from doing
so.3
Petitioner’s Assets and Liabilities
Petitioner did not provide respondent with any meaningful
financial information during the Appeals process. However, Mr.
Swartz found that petitioner earned in excess of $200,000 from
stock sales for the years 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In
addition, petitioner owned property in Florida that she purchased
3
Sec. 1.6013-1, Income Tax Regs., provides:
Sec. 1.6013-1. Joint returns.
(a) In general. (1) A husband and wife may elect
to make a joint return under section 6013(a) even
though one of the spouses has no gross income or
deductions. For rules for determining whether
individuals occupy the status of husband and wife for
purposes of filing a joint return, see paragraph (a) of
§ 1.6013-4. For any taxable year with respect to which
a joint return has been filed, separate returns shall
not be made by the spouses after the time for filing
the return of either has expired. * * *
- 6 -
for $450,000, a home in Virginia, and four rental properties in
south Florida.
Petitioner’s Request for Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Respondent received from petitioner Form 8857, Request for
Innocent Spouse Relief, on July 24, 2000. In support of
petitioner’s request for innocent spouse relief, the Merendinos
each provided respondent with affidavits in which they stated
that Dr. Merendino signed petitioner’s name to the joint return
without her knowledge or consent. In November 2003, Dr.
Merendino sent a letter to the Appeals officer providing
additional background. In that letter, Dr. Merendino stated that
petitioner immediately objected when Dr. Merendino signed her
name and contacted an attorney to file her taxes separately. Dr.
Merendino also stated in the letter that he had received a notice
of an overpayment of more than $400,000 from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), but that those funds were applied to a tax
liability he had other than 1996.
The Appeals officer, finding that a joint return was filed,
considered relief under section 6015(b) and (c) but determined
petitioner was not eligible since the liability involves an
unpaid balance or an underpayment, and thus relief could only be
considered under section 6015(f). In making this determination,
the Appeals officer evaluated petitioner’s request under Rev.
- 7 -
Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.4 Despite petitioner’s contention
that she did not consent to filing the joint return, the Appeals
officer concluded that petitioner met the seven threshold
requirements of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at
448. The Appeals officer then examined whether petitioner
satisfies all three prerequisites for section 6015(f) relief
provided in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, and concluded that she
failed to meet the elements because: (1) Petitioner was still
married to Dr. Merendino and lived with him for some of the
preceding 12 months; (2) petitioner did not adequately
demonstrate that she had no knowledge or reason to know that the
tax liability would not be paid; and (3) petitioner did not
adequately demonstrate that she would suffer economic hardship if
relief were not granted. The Appeals Office then considered
petitioner’s claim for relief under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448. The Appeals officer determined that
relief should not be granted based on the following factors: (1)
The Merendinos, though they maintained different residences, were
still married and lived together for part of the 12 months prior
4
On Aug. 11, 2003, the Commissioner issued Rev. Proc.
2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, which supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
2000-1 C.B. 447, effective for requests for relief which were
filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and requests for such relief
which were pending on, and for which no preliminary determination
letter has been issued as of, Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
supra, does not apply in this case because respondent issued
petitioner a preliminary determination letter on Feb. 5, 2002.
- 8 -
to petitioner’s claim for relief; (2) petitioner signed the joint
tax return for the taxable year 1996 showing a balance due; (3)
petitioner was not reasonable in believing that the remaining
balance would be paid out of the proceeds from the sale of Dr.
Merendino’s business; (4) Dr. Merendino never abused petitioner;
(5) there was no legal obligation created under a separation
agreement or a divorce decree for Dr. Merendino to pay the
liability; and (6) considering petitioner’s assets and income
level, petitioner would not suffer economic hardship if relief
was not granted. Taking all these factors into consideration,
the Appeals officer concluded that there were insufficient
factors in favor of granting relief.
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court on April 11,
2005, seeking relief from joint and several liability. At the
time the joint return was filed in 1996, the amount of unpaid tax
was $405,860, as stated previously. Petitioner asserts that the
amount of the liability allocable to her, as shown by her attempt
to file a separate return, was $28,408. Petitioner seeks relief
only from the tax that is not attributable to her income.
OPINION
I. Petitioner Signed the Joint Return
Petitioner originally contended that Dr. Merendino filed the
1996 tax return and forged her signature without her permission.
According to the Merendinos, Dr. Merendino signed and filed the
- 9 -
return for himself and petitioner while he was in Maryland and
petitioner was in Florida. On brief, petitioner has abandoned
her claim that she did not sign the joint return and seeks relief
from joint and several liability under section 6015(f). We must,
however, note the facts in the record that contradict
petitioner’s initial version because the diminished credibility
of petitioner goes to the merits of the application of section
6015(f). Petitioner’s initial contention that she did not sign
the joint return and that her husband filed the return in
Maryland is directly contradicted by the postmark on the return
from the town where she lived in Florida. There is no logical
reason for the return to have been in Florida other than for
petitioner to review and sign it. Petitioner has not provided
any explanation for this inconsistency. The record’s direct
contradiction of petitioner’s statements strongly diminishes her
credibility.
Further, even if petitioner did not actually sign the joint
return, her own testimony demonstrates that she authorized the
filing of the joint return. Petitioner admitted that when she
called the accountant in Baltimore to give the information on
what she owed, he specifically told her that she and Mr.
Merendino were going to file a joint return, and petitioner did
not object. Therefore, petitioner’s contention that the return
was filed without her permission is also contradicted by her own
testimony.
- 10 -
II. 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) or (c). See sec. 6015(b)(1) and (c)(1);
Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147 (2003).
Therefore, our review is limited to section 6015(f), which
permits in certain circumstances relief from joint and several
liability for unpaid taxes. See Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
494, 497 (2002). Section 6015(f) grants the Commissioner
discretion to grant equitable relief from tax liability to a
spouse if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances,
it is inequitable to hold the spouse liable for any unpaid tax or
any deficiency (or any portion of either), and relief is not
available under section 6015(b) or (c). In order to prevail, the
taxpayer must demonstrate that the Commissioner abused his
discretion by acting arbitrarily, capriciously, clearly
unlawfully, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Jonson v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th
Cir. 2003); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 289-290 (2000).
Here, petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent
abused his discretion in denying her equitable relief under
section 6015(f). See Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004);
Ogonoski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-52. We have
- 11 -
jurisdiction to determine whether equitable relief is available
to petitioner for underpayment of tax shown on a joint return.
Ewing v. Commissioner, supra at 502.5
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448,
prescribes guidelines or factors that will be considered in
determining whether an individual qualifies for equitable relief
under section 6015(f). This Court has upheld the use of the
guidelines specified in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, and has
analyzed the factors listed therein, in reviewing the
Commissioner's negative determinations under section 6015(f).
See, e.g., Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 147-152. Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448, lists seven
threshold conditions that must be satisfied before the
Commissioner will consider a request for equitable relief under
section 6015(f). Respondent concedes that petitioner satisfies
the threshold conditions in this case. As discussed earlier, we
have found that petitioner did file a joint return. Therefore,
petitioner meets all the threshold requirements under Rev. Proc.
2000-15, supra.
Once petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirements,
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, provides that,
in cases where a liability reported on a joint return is unpaid,
relief under section 6015(f) will ordinarily be granted if three
5
Respondent continues to contest our jurisdiction to review
sec. 6015(f) claims in this case.
- 12 -
elements are satisfied: (1) At the time relief is requested, the
requesting spouse is no longer married to or is legally separated
from the nonrequesting spouse, or has not been a member of the
same household as the nonrequesting spouse at any time during the
12-month period ending on the date relief was requested; (2) at
the time the return was signed, the requesting spouse had no
knowledge or reason to know that the tax would not be paid; and
(3) the requesting spouse will suffer economic hardship if relief
is not granted. Relief under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02,
supra, is available only to the extent that the unpaid liability
is allocable to the nonrequesting spouse. We shall now address
each of these factors.
1. Marital Status
Petitioner is still married to Dr. Merendino. Although they
have no plans to legally separate, they have been living apart
since at least 1998. However, petitioner admitted that she and
Dr. Merendino lived in the same residence for 2 months during the
12-month period prior to the date that petitioner filed her
request for relief. Therefore, in light of petitioner’s own
statements, we conclude that the Merendinos failed to satisfy the
12-month period required by Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02.
2. Knowledge or Reason To Know
The relevant knowledge in the case of a reported but unpaid
liability is that the tax would not be paid when the return was
- 13 -
signed. Wiest v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-91 (citing Notice
98-61, sec. 3.03(2)(b), 1998-2 C.B. 756, 757); see also Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(d), 2000-1 C.B. at 449. Petitioner
contends that she did not know or did not have reason to know
that the liability would not be paid. Petitioner asserted in
documentation submitted to the Appeals Office that she expected
the tax liability would be paid out of the sale of Dr.
Merendino’s business and that although a portion of the
outstanding liability was attributable to her, Dr. Merendino had
always paid the tax liabilities in previous years and she
expected him to do so again for the 1996 liability. At trial,
petitioner testified that she believed the funds to pay the tax
liability would come from the sale of Dr. Merendino’s business
and from the overpayment of $400,000 that Dr. Merendino made for
a previous year. Petitioner further stated that she relied on
Dr. Merendino to file the return and pay the taxes.
Petitioner’s reasons for believing that the tax liability
would be paid are not credible. The return was filed in December
1998. It was not reasonable for petitioner to rely on the funds
from the sale of Dr. Merendino’s business to pay for the tax
liability by the time the return was filed. The settlement of
the lawsuits against Dr. Merendino’s business occurred on June
- 14 -
12, 1997. Petitioner admitted to both Mr. Swartz and this Court
that she was aware that Dr. Merendino did not receive any
significant cash proceeds from the sale of the business.
Petitioner contended at trial that she expected the funds
from the overpayment would pay the 1996 liability. Dr. Merendino
stated during the Appeals process that he was notified about the
overpayment, but those funds were never available to him. There
is evidence that Dr. Merendino told petitioner that he had an
overpayment to pay the tax, but there is no evidence of when he
told her or whether petitioner had reason to believe those funds
would be available at the time the return was filed showing the
balance due. The source of the overpayment was from overpaid
Federal employment taxes of a business which was sold 2 years
earlier. Further, Dr. Merendino never received a refund from the
alleged overpayment. We believe that a prudent person would
inquire about the details of the overpayment and when it would be
paid before relying on the existence of an overpayment to pay a
tax liability that was more than $400,000. In addition, the
Merendinos’ attorney’s own statements near the time the joint
return was filed, indicating that the Merendinos wished to
negotiate a joint offer-in-compromise, diminish the plausibility
of petitioner’s vague testimony regarding the expectation of
receiving the refund from the overpayment. Given petitioner’s
other misstatements, we do not find the expectation of funds from
- 15 -
the overpayment to be a credible basis to show that petitioner
had reason to believe that the tax would be paid.
The evidence also points to the conclusion that petitioner
actually knew that the liability would not be paid when the
return was filed. The record demonstrates that petitioner was
extremely concerned about the filing of the 1996 tax return and
had sought the advice of accountants to file a separate return.
The most prominent indicator of petitioner’s knowledge that the
liability would not be paid when the return was filed was her own
attorney’s statement after the joint return was filed. Acting on
petitioner’s behalf, he informed Mr. Swartz that the Merendinos
were discussing a joint offer-in-compromise arrangement with the
IRS in Baltimore to pay for the joint liability. Therefore, the
circumstances reveal that petitioner was aware of a large tax
liability due and problems associated with the payment of that
tax when the return was filed in December 1998. We believe any
testimony of petitioner to the contrary is based upon
misunderstandings as to her knowledge at the time the return was
actually filed.
3. Economic Hardship
Petitioner contends that she will suffer economic hardship
if respondent does not grant relief under section 6015(f).
Petitioner cites her age (she was 65 at the time she requested
relief), her inability to work, her health problems, and the
- 16 -
responsibility she has to care for and support her 40-year-old
schizophrenic son.
Petitioner has not established that she will suffer economic
hardship if relief is not granted. Respondent repeatedly
requested copies of current income information and current
financial information. Petitioner failed to provide this
information. The record demonstrates that petitioner had income
in excess of $200,000 from stock sales for the years 1996, 1998,
1999, and 2000. Petitioner contends that she sold the stocks in
1996 and 1999 to supplement her living expenses. However,
petitioner’s unfiled separate tax return reflects income prior to
her stock sales in excess of $242,000. In addition, at the time
of her request for relief, petitioner owned the property that she
purchased in Florida for $450,000. Petitioner also jointly owned
a house in Virginia and four rental properties in south Florida.
Further, the fact that petitioner did not provide any financial
information as requested supports a finding that respondent did
not abuse his discretion in concluding petitioner would not
suffer economic hardship. See Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1,
13 (2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus, petitioner
has failed to satisfy each of the three factors under Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02, and therefore does not qualify for equitable
relief under that section.
Where relief is not available under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
- 17 -
4.02, then Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448-
449, sets forth guidelines or factors that the Commissioner will
consider in deciding claims for equitable relief under section
6015(f). Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1), 2000-1 C.B. at 448-
449, sets forth the following positive factors which weigh in
favor of granting equitable relief under section 6015(f):
(a) Marital status. The requesting spouse is
separated * * * or divorced from the nonrequesting
spouse.
(b) Economic hardship. The requesting spouse
would suffer economic hardship (within the meaning of
section 4.02(1)(c) of this revenue procedure) if relief
from the liability is not granted.
(c) Abuse. The requesting spouse was abused by
the nonrequesting spouse, but such abuse did not amount
to duress.
(d) No knowledge or reason to know. In the case
of a liability that was properly reported but not paid,
the requesting spouse did not know and had no reason to
know that the liability would not be paid. * * *
(e) Nonrequesting spouse's legal obligation. The
nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to
a divorce decree or agreement to pay the outstanding
liability. * * *
(f) Attributable to nonrequesting spouse. The
liability for which relief is sought is solely
attributable to the nonrequesting spouse.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2), 2000-1 C.B. at 449, sets
forth the following negative factors which weigh against granting
equitable relief under section 6015(f):
(a) Attributable to the requesting spouse. The
unpaid liability or item giving rise to the deficiency
- 18 -
is attributable to the requesting spouse.
(b) Knowledge, or reason to know. A requesting
spouse knew or had reason to know of the item giving
rise to a deficiency or that the reported liability
would be unpaid at the time the return was signed.
This is an extremely strong factor weighing against
relief. * * *
(c) Significant benefit. The requesting spouse
has significantly benefitted (beyond normal support)
from the unpaid liability or items giving rise to the
deficiency. * * *
(d) Lack of economic hardship. The requesting
spouse will not experience economic hardship (within
the meaning of section 4.02(1)(c) of this revenue
procedure) if relief from the liability is not granted.
(e) Noncompliance with federal income tax laws.
The requesting spouse has not made a good faith effort
to comply with federal income tax laws in the tax years
following the tax year or years to which the request
for relief relates.
(f) Requesting spouse's legal obligation. The
requesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to a
divorce decree or agreement to pay the liability.
The above guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive, and no
single factor is determinative whether equitable relief will be
granted in a particular case. Rather, all factors will be
considered and weighed appropriately. Ewing v. Commissioner, 122
T.C. 32, 48 (2004); Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03.
A. Positive Factors
i. Marital Status
Petitioner and Dr. Merendino lived apart since at least
1998, with a few exceptions that disqualified petitioner under
the previous section 4.02(1)(a). Given the overall record, we
- 19 -
view this factor in favor of petitioner.
ii. Economic Hardship
Our analysis under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, concluding
that petitioner does not satisfy the economic hardship factor
remains applicable here and weighs against petitioner.
iii. Abuse by Nonrequesting Spouse
There is no evidence in the record that Dr. Merendino abused
petitioner. Thus, this is a neutral factor. Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 46; Washington v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. at 149; Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(c).
iv. No Knowledge or Reason To Know
As addressed previously, we are not persuaded that
petitioner lacked knowledge or reason to know that any unpaid tax
liability for 1996 would not be paid. Thus, we find petitioner
has failed to carry her burden, and this factor weighs against
petitioner.
v. Nonrequesting Spouse's Legal Obligation
Because petitioner is not separated or divorced from Dr.
Merendino, this is a neutral factor.
vi. Liabilities Solely Attributable to
Nonrequesting Spouse
Petitioner seeks relief from paying the amount of tax
liability that is attributable to Dr. Merendino. Petitioner
agrees to pay the tax liability attributable to her income.
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of petitioner.
- 20 -
B. Negative Factors
i. Attributable to the Requesting Spouse
The majority of the liability is attributable to Dr.
Merendino. Petitioner seeks relief only from the unpaid tax
liability for that portion of the liability attributable to Dr.
Merendino. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
ii. Knowledge or Reason to Know
We have concluded above that petitioner should have known
the unpaid tax liability would not be paid. Thus, this factor
weighs against granting petitioner equitable relief. Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(b), 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448-449.
iii. Significant Benefit
Respondent concedes that petitioner did not significantly
benefit from the tax savings.
iv. Lack of Economic Hardship
As we noted and have found in our analysis previously
discussed, petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proving
that she will suffer economic hardship if relief is denied.
Consequently, this factor weighs against granting petitioner
equitable relief.
v. Noncompliance With Federal Income Tax Laws in
Subsequent Years
Respondent did not determine that this factor is present in
the instant case, and thus this is a neutral factor. See Ewing
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 46-47.
- 21 -
vi. Requesting Spouse’s Legal Obligation
The Merendinos were married during all relevant times and
remain so. In addition, neither petitioner nor Dr. Merendino had
legally assumed sole responsibility to pay unpaid tax liability
at issue. Therefore, this factor is not present in this case and
is a neutral factor.
III. Conclusion
The testimony in this case is not informative as to what
actually led petitioner to sign the joint return for the tax year
1996 in December 1998. Understanding the motivation for that
decision would have been preferable to petitioner’s mistaken
attempt to assert that she never actually signed the return. We
cannot speculate as to how petitioner was led to sign the return,
and she has not accurately explained why she did. We find as
fact that she signed the return, and we conclude that petitioner
has failed to carry her burden of showing that respondent abused
his discretion in denying petitioner equitable relief under
section 6015(f) with respect to the unpaid 1996 tax liability.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.