T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-16
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBBY GOODALE GILBERT, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21730-04S. Filed January 30, 2007.
Robby Goodale Gilbert, pro se.
Robert V. Boeshaar, for respondent.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to section 7463 in effect when the petition was filed.1
The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,
and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Petitioner and his former spouse reported underpayments of
tax in the amount of $19,869 and $5,850 for 2000 and 2001,
respectively. No notice of deficiency was issued for either of
these taxable years. This case involves petitioner’s election to
seek relief from joint and several liability for Federal income
tax for the years 2000 and 2001 under section 6015(f).
Respondent determined that petitioner is not entitled to relief.
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to
relief under section 6015(f).
Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the
annexed exhibits, are so found and are made part hereof.
Petitioner’s legal residence at the time the petition was filed
was Bainbridge Island, Washington.
During the years at issue, petitioner was married to
Juliette C. Peet (Ms. Peet). Petitioner and Ms. Peet married
sometime in June 1995. They separated in June 2001, and their
divorce was finalized on January 11, 2002. Petitioner was
employed as an art teacher by the Art Institute of Seattle for
taxable years 2000 and 2001. Additionally, he received income
from work he performed as a children’s illustrator for
Interactive Arts, a business he wholly owned and whose activities
were reported on a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, of
the income tax returns for the years at issue. Ms. Peet worked
as a designer during taxable years 2000 and 2001.
- 3 -
On a joint Federal income tax return for 2000, petitioner
and Ms. Peet reported a tax due of $19,869. The tax was not paid
at the time the return was filed. Despite their recent divorce,
petitioner and Ms. Peet decided to file an income tax return
jointly for taxable year 2001. On the joint return for 2001,
they reported a tax due of $5,850. This tax was also not paid at
the time the return was filed.
Petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse
Relief, on June 5, 2002, requesting relief from joint and several
liability for the tax associated with income earned by Ms. Peet
during the years at issue, 2000 and 2001. Petitioner alleges
that Ms. Peet handled their financial affairs, prepared the 2000
tax return, and stole the money that he had set aside to pay the
tax liability for that year.2 Petitioner entered into an
installment agreement to pay the tax liability for 2000 as soon
as he learned from respondent sometime in June 2001 that Ms. Peet
had not, as she had represented to petitioner, paid the liability
in full. Petitioner further alleges that the terms of the
divorce decree and Ms. Peet’s theft rendered him unable to pay
2
Petitioner received $39,826 from the sale of stock in 2000,
and he deposited the proceeds of the sale into a money market
account. In the weeks prior to the filing of the joint income
tax return for 2000, Ms. Peet transferred all of the money in the
aforementioned account and an unspecified sum from the couple’s
joint checking account to a private account in her name. She
told petitioner that the money missing from these accounts had
been used to satisfy, among other things, the tax liability for
2000.
- 4 -
the tax liability for 2001 at the time the return was filed.3
These circumstances prompted petitioner to enter into another
installment agreement with the IRS. Respondent issued a
preliminary determination letter on May 12, 2003, denying
petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015(f).
Respondent denied relief for the reason that the tax liabilities
were associated with income earned exclusively by petitioner.
Petitioner appealed this determination. On August 19, 2004,
respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Your
Request for Relief Under the Equitable Relief Provision of
Section 6015(f) to petitioner denying him relief from joint and
several liability under section 6015(f) for taxable years 2000
and 2001.
Petitioner argues in his petition that he is entitled to
relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f).
The petition sets forth a number of arguments; yet, they all
support one proposition: but for Ms. Peet’s actions, the
outstanding tax liabilities would be paid. Pursuant to Rule 325
and King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118 (2000), respondent served
3
Pursuant to the terms of the divorce decree, petitioner was
required to pay, inter alia, $21,500 to Ms. Peet for her share of
the communal household. Ms. Peet was required to pay, among
other things, $7,508.08, her portion of the 2000 tax liability,
and one-fourth of the tax liability for 2001. Rather than pay
her share of the tax liabilities for the years at issue, upon
receipt of the $21,500 from petitioner, Ms. Peet kidnaped the
couple’s minor son on or about April 3, 2002, and fled the United
States.
- 5 -
Ms. Peet with notice of this proceeding and her right to
intervene.4 She did not, however, file a notice of intervention
and did not appear nor participate in the trial of this case.
A taxpayer generally may petition this Court for a review of
the Commissioner’s determination denying relief under section
6015. Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A). On July 25, 2006, this Court issued
Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), holding that the
Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
denial of relief under section 6015(f) in a stand-alone section
6015 case where no deficiency has been asserted. The Tax Relief
and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-432, div. C, sec. 408,
120 Stat. 3061, amended section 6015(e)(1) to provide that this
Court may review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under
section 6015(f) in cases where no deficiency has been asserted.5
Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to review respondent’s
determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief under
section 6015(f) from tax reported but not paid on his joint
income tax returns for 2000 and 2001.
4
Between the time that the petition was filed in this case
and the time of trial, Ms. Peet was found in New Zealand,
extradited to the United States, and incarcerated. As of the
date of trial, petitioner’s minor son had been returned to the
United States and was in petitioner’s custody.
5
The legislative amendment applies “with respect to
liability for taxes arising or remaining unpaid on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.” The date of enactment was
Dec. 20, 2006. See Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub.
L. 109-432, div. C, sec. 408, 120 Stat. 3061.
- 6 -
Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a Federal
income tax return jointly. Sec. 6013(a). Each spouse filing a
joint return is jointly and severally liable for the accuracy of
the return and the entire tax due. Sec. 6013(d)(3). 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.
6015(f)(2). Section 6015(f)(1) provides that a taxpayer may be
relieved from joint and several liability if it is determined,
after considering all facts and circumstances, that it is
inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for the unpaid tax or
deficiency. This Court reviews the Commissioner’s denial of
relief pursuant to section 6015(f) under an abuse of discretion
standard. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287-292 (2000).
6
Sec. 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, 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.
7
A prerequisite to granting relief under sec. 6015(b) or (c)
is the existence of a tax deficiency or, as referred to in
various cases, an “understatement of tax”. Sec. 6015(b)(1)(B),
(c)(1); Block v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62, 65-66 (2003). The
requirement that a proposed or assessed deficiency be present
precludes petitioner from seeking relief in the instant case
under sec. 6015(b) or (c) for the underpayment of income tax
reported on the joint returns for the years at issue but not paid
at the time the returns were filed.
- 7 -
The Court defers to the Commissioner’s determination unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th
Cir. 2003). Whether the Commissioner’s determination was an
abuse of discretion is a question of fact. Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002). The requesting spouse bears the burden of proving
that there was an abuse of discretion. Abelein v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-274.
The Commissioner has prescribed guidelines that are
considered in determining whether it is inequitable to hold a
requesting spouse liable for all or part of the liability for any
unpaid tax or deficiency. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2001-1
C.B. 447, 448, sets forth seven threshold conditions that the
requesting spouse must satisfy before the Commissioner will
consider a request for relief under section 6015(f).8 Respondent
8
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, which supersedes Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, is effective for requests for
relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, or requests for relief
pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination
letter has been issued as of that date. Petitioner’s request for
relief was submitted on June 5, 2002, and a preliminary
determination letter was issued on May 12, 2003. Accordingly,
the guidelines found in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, are applicable
in this case.
- 8 -
does not dispute that petitioner has satisfied the seven
threshold conditions.9
Where, as here, the requesting spouse satisfies the
threshold conditions, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B.
at 448, lists factors to be considered in determining whether to
grant equitable relief for underpayments of tax. Equitable
relief under section 6015(f) for an underpayment of tax on a
joint return will ordinarily be granted by the Commissioner if
all three of the following criteria are met: (1) The requesting
spouse is divorced, is legally separated, or has been physically
separated for 1 year from the nonrequesting spouse at the time
relief is requested; (2) the requesting spouse did not know or
have reason to know that the income tax liability would not be
paid at the time the joint return was signed; and (3) the
requesting spouse will, absent relief, suffer economic hardship.
Although he was divorced from his wife at the time relief
was requested, petitioner was aware that the income tax liability
for 2001 would not be paid at the time he signed the return. As
explained by him, the recent divorce settlement and Ms. Peet’s
9
Although an underpayment of tax may be attributable to
income earned by the requesting spouse, Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.
4.01(7)(c), 2003-2 C.B. at 297, allows equitable relief to be
considered in cases, such as this one, where funds intended for
the payment of tax were misappropriated by the nonrequesting
spouse for the nonrequesting spouse’s benefit. Because the
guidelines found in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, apply in the
instant case, however, this provision has no bearing on the
outcome of this case.
- 9 -
theft rendered petitioner unable to pay the tax reported on the
2001 return at the time of filing. Further, petitioner has not
shown to the Court’s satisfaction that he would experience
economic hardship if he were forced to pay the tax liabilities
for the years at issue. A taxpayer might experience economic
hardship if he or she were unable to pay basic reasonable living
expenses. Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Even
taking into account the monthly payments being made on the
installment agreements for 2000 and 2001, petitioner acknowledged
that he managed to pay his basic living expenses.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, provides
factors to be evaluated for requests for relief under section
6015 for requesting spouses who filed a joint return and do not
qualify for relief under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02. Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1), offers a partial list of positive
factors to be considered, including: (1) Marital status; (2)
economic hardship; (3) abuse; (4) no knowledge or reason to know
that the reported liability would not be paid; (5) whether the
nonrequesting spouse had a legal obligation to pay the liability;
and (6) whether the liability for which relief is sought is
solely attributable to the nonrequesting spouse. Negative
factors weighing against relief in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03(2), 2000-1 C.B. at 449, include: (1) The unpaid liability
is attributable to the requesting spouse; (2) the requesting
- 10 -
spouse knew or had reason to know that the reported liability
would be unpaid at the time of signing; (3) the requesting spouse
benefited significantly from the unpaid liability; (4) the
requesting spouse will not experience economic hardship if relief
is not granted; (5) the requesting spouse had not made a good
faith attempt to comply with the tax laws in subsequent years;
and (6) the requesting spouse has a legal obligation to pay the
deficiency. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, makes clear that no
single factor is determinative. The Court considers the
aforementioned factors in determining whether there is an abuse
of discretion by respondent in denying equitable relief under
section 6015(f) for the underpayments.
For a taxpayer who seeks relief from an underpayment of
income tax due, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. at 449, questions
whether the requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the
income tax liability would not be paid at the time of filing. A
spouse requesting relief under section 6015 has a duty of
inquiry. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 284. Petitioner
admitted he was aware that the reported tax liability for 2001
would not be paid at the time the return was filed because the
combination of the divorce settlement agreement and Ms. Peet’s
illicit actions rendered him unable to pay the tax due at the
time of filing. At trial, respondent asserted that petitioner
should have known that the tax liability for 2000 would not be
- 11 -
paid at the time the return was filed; however, the Court
disagrees. In essence, respondent contends that, notwithstanding
the absence of factors to intimate financial infidelity on the
part of Ms. Peet, petitioner should have known that the money he
designated for the 2000 tax liability was instead siphoned into a
private account in her name. There is nothing in the record to
indicate that petitioner had reason to suspect the financial
deception from Ms. Peet that gave rise to the underpayment of tax
for 2000. The Court, thus, finds that petitioner did not know or
have reason to know that the tax liability for 2000 would not be
paid at the time the return was filed.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(e), 2000-1 C.B. at 449,
considers whether the nonrequesting spouse had a legal obligation
pursuant to a divorce decree or other agreement to pay the
liability for which relief is sought. According to the terms of
the divorce decree, Ms. Peet was obligated to pay $7,508.08 for
her share of the tax liability for 2000 and $1,462.50 for her
portion of the tax liability for 2001.10 This factor supports
granting relief to petitioner because, by making continued
payments on his installment agreements, he paid in excess of what
10
The return for 2001 reflected an underpayment of tax in
the amount of $5,850. Because Ms. Peet was liable under the
divorce decree for one-fourth of the reported tax liability for
2001, she is obligated to pay $1,462.50 of the total liability
for that year.
- 12 -
he was legally obligated to pay under the divorce decree for his
share of the tax liabilities for the years at issue.
Petitioner’s filing for divorce prior to requesting relief
under section 6015(f) favors granting him relief. Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(a). Yet, even in those cases where the
requesting spouse’s marital status favors granting relief, Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(f), 2000-1 C.B. at 449, questions
whether the tax liability is attributable to the spouse
requesting relief. The basis for denying petitioner relief under
section 6015(f) stemmed from respondent’s belief that the
entirety of the tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001 arose from
income earned by petitioner. Petitioner concedes his
responsibility for any tax liability associated with the income
he earned during the years at issue from his employment with the
Art Institute of Seattle. He similarly concedes that the portion
of the underpayment from taxable year 2000 that arose from the
sale of stock was solely his income. The tax liability
associated with the income earned by Ms. Peet for assisting
petitioner with Interactive Arts, his wholly owned Schedule C
business, during the years at issue, however, is the subject of
petitioner’s dispute. At trial, petitioner testified that Ms.
Peet performed design work for Interactive Arts, assisted in
administering the affairs of the business, and received income
from Interactive Arts for these services. Respondent contends
- 13 -
that petitioner’s status as the sole owner of Interactive Arts
subjects him to any and all tax liability associated with the
income earned by the business. Respondent did not, however,
offer evidence to rebut petitioner’s testimony, which this Court
finds credible, that both petitioner and Ms. Peet actively
participated in the affairs of Interactive Arts that produced
income for the business during the years at issue. Furthermore,
this Court has held that the income and losses of a business are
not blindly attributed to the person listed as proprietor of that
business on the joint return. See, e.g., Rowe v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-325. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of
granting relief.
Petitioner appears to have done everything within his power
to settle amicably the tax liabilities for the years at issue and
made a good faith attempt to comply with the tax laws and satisfy
his obligations with the IRS. Barring Ms. Peet’s deception, the
Court is convinced that the outstanding liabilities would have
been paid. Upon consideration of all of the facts and
circumstances, the Court finds that respondent’s determination to
deny relief under section 6015(f) to petitioner was an abuse of
discretion. Weighing all of the factors in this case both
supporting and opposing granting relief to petitioner, the Court
is satisfied that it would be inequitable to deny petitioner
relief under section 6015(f).
- 14 -
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for petitioner.