T.C. Memo. 2008-185
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KATHLEEN SULLIVAN ALIOTO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 14356-03. Filed July 31, 2008.
Karen L. Hawkins, for petitioner.
Andrew R. Moore and Michael Melone, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner did
not qualify for relief from joint and several liability pursuant
to section 60151 for 1995 and 1996.2 This case is before the
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2
In her petition, petitioner sought relief pursuant to
(continued...)
- 2 -
Court on petitioner’s motion to vacate order of dismissal, as
supplemented, pursuant to Rule 162 and petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. The Court will grant petitioner’s motion to
vacate order of dismissal, as supplemented, and will grant
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The issue for decision
is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and
several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) for 1995 and 1996.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Procedural Background
Petitioner Kathleen Sullivan Alioto (Mrs. Alioto) and her
husband Joe Alioto (Mayor Alioto)3 filed joint Federal income tax
returns for 1995 and 1996. Mayor Alioto died in January 1998.
After his death Mrs. Alioto filed a request for section 6015
relief for 1995 and 1996. Respondent determined that Mrs. Alioto
did not qualify for section 6015 relief for either year. Mrs.
Alioto petitioned for section 6015 relief. For 1995 and 1996
Mrs. Alioto sought only section 6015(f) relief. No deficiency
was asserted against Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto for either
year.
2
(...continued)
sec. 6015 for 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Since the petition was
filed, respondent has collected amounts (payments from the Estate
of Joseph Alioto) that fully satisfied the liabilities for 1993
and 1994, and the parties agree that these years are no longer at
issue in this case.
3
From Jan. 8, 1968, through Jan. 8, 1976, petitioner’s
husband Joe Alioto served as mayor of San Francisco, California.
- 3 -
In Alioto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-199 (Alioto I),
we held that we lacked jurisdiction over the case at bar. We
stated:
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.
2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002). Whether this Court
has jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised by a
party or on the Court’s own motion. Ewing v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 495; Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328 (2000).
Recently, the Court held that we lack jurisdiction
over “stand-alone” section 6015(f) cases (i.e., cases
in which no deficiency has been asserted) such as the
case at bar. Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. ___
(2006). Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, the court to which appeal of this
case apparently lies, also has held that the Tax Court
lacks jurisdiction over “stand-alone” section 6015(f)
cases (i.e., cases in which no deficiency has been
asserted) such as the case at bar. Commissioner v.
Ewing, 439 F.3d at 1014-1015.
Accordingly, pursuant to Billings and the opinion
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s
[sic] in Ewing, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction
over this case. Billings v. Commissioner, supra; Toppi
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-182 (dismissing stand-
alone section 6015(f) case for lack of jurisdiction
pursuant to Billings because the Commissioner did not
assert a deficiency for any of the years in issue);
Stroud v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-175 (same); see
also Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d at 1014-1015;
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445
F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Therefore, we shall dismiss
this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, on September 18, 2006, the Court entered an order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- 4 -
On October 18, 2006, the Court received petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration. On November 29, 2006, petitioner filed a
motion for leave to file a motion to vacate order of dismissal
and lodged a motion to vacate order of dismissal.
On December 12, 2006, the Court granted petitioner’s motion
for leave to file a motion to vacate order of dismissal and filed
the motion to vacate order of dismissal, as supplemented, and the
motion for reconsideration.
As of December 20, 2006, Mrs. Alioto’s balances due for 1995
and 1996 were $153,501 and $1,832,010, respectively.
II. Substantive Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time she filed the
petition, Mrs. Alioto resided in California.
In 1966 Mrs. Alioto received a B.A. in English literature
from Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart in Purchase, New
York. That same year she began work as a third grade teacher in
Bedford-Stuyvesant, New York, at an annual salary of $5,400.
For the next 3 years Mrs. Alioto worked as an elementary
school teacher at P.S. 113 in Harlem, New York, at an annual
salary of less than $6,000.
From 1971 to 1973 Mrs. Alioto taught emotionally disturbed
children in an inner city neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts.
- 5 -
In 1973 Mrs. Alioto was elected to the Boston Public School
Board. From 1974 to 1980 she served without pay as a member of
the Boston Public School Board. During this period Mrs. Alioto
went back to school, and in 1980 she earned a Ph.D. in education.
Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto married in February 1978. At
the time of their marriage Mayor Alioto was almost 30 years older
than Mrs. Alioto (Mrs. Alioto was in her early thirties and Mayor
Alioto was in his sixties). They remained married until Mayor
Alioto’s death in January 1998 just before his 82d birthday.
Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto had two children. These two
children were 18 and 16 years old at the time of Mayor Alioto’s
death. Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto enjoyed a loving,
supportive, and harmonious marital relationship, and Mayor Alioto
believed it was his absolute duty to care and provide for his
family.
Before his marriage to Mrs. Alioto, Mayor Alioto was married
for over 30 years to Angelina Alioto (Angelina). Mayor Alioto
and Angelina had six children. This marriage ended in divorce.
In December 1978, shortly after marrying Mrs. Alioto, Mayor
Alioto executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) with
Angelina. In the MSA, among other things, Mayor Alioto obligated
himself to indemnify and defend Angelina with respect to
outstanding joint Federal and State tax liabilities for 1976 and
- 6 -
1977. Mrs. Alioto did not learn of the MSA until after Mayor
Alioto’s death.
From January 8, 1968, through January 8, 1976, Mayor Alioto
served as the mayor of San Francisco, California. Mayor Alioto
practiced law as an antitrust attorney for his entire legal
career, which spanned over 50 years.
From 1980 to 1998 Mrs. Alioto served on various educational
committees, but she was not paid for this service and did not
earn income working outside her home. During this time Mrs.
Alioto “attended to” Mayor Alioto, kept their home, and raised
their children. Mayor Alioto did not want Mrs. Alioto to work
outside the home during their marriage.
Mayor Alioto virtually never discussed finances or business
matters with his children or with Mrs. Alioto--such discussions
were rare. Mrs. Alioto was not involved with Mayor Alioto’s law
practice and had virtually no knowledge of his business dealings.
In April 1984 a residence at 2510 Pacific Avenue, San
Francisco, California, was purchased as a home for Mayor Alioto
and Mrs. Alioto (Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence). Title to
Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence was in her name.
In 1990 and 1991, pursuant to stipulated decisions entered
by the Tax Court, Mayor Alioto individually was assessed
- 7 -
additional income tax of $522,489 for 1976;4 and Mayor Alioto and
Angelina jointly were assessed additional income tax of $486,403
for 1977. When these “premarital”5 (vis-a-vis Mrs. Alioto)
liabilities were assessed, interest had accrued increasing the
amounts due to $1,525,856.96 and $1,268,201.85 for 1976 and 1977,
respectively.
Accountants at Kelly & Rossi prepared the couple’s joint tax
returns for each year Mayor Alioto was married to Mrs. Alioto.
Mrs. Alioto never met with or spoke with anyone at Kelly & Rossi.
On October 15, 1996, Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto filed a
joint Federal income tax return for 1995 (1995 return). The 1995
return listed $40,249 in income tax, $13,394 in self-employment
tax, $6,543 in household employment tax, an estimated tax penalty
of $2,929, no estimated tax payments, and a total balance due of
$63,115. Attached to the 1995 return was a letter dated October
15, 1996, on letterhead from the “Law Offices of Joseph L.
Alioto”, addressed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the
Franchise Tax Board, regarding taxes due for 1995, signed by
Mayor Alioto, stating:
4
Mayor Alioto and Angelina, however, were jointly liable
for this amount for 1976.
5
We use the term “premarital” for convenience. The 1976
and 1977 tax liabilities are “premarital” as regards petitioner
(i.e., they predate petitioner’s marriage to Mayor Alioto).
- 8 -
I am enclosing my tax returns without payment of the
tax, as I have impounded a recent fee of $2.1 million in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division (USDC Case No. C 96-2922
CAL) before the Honorable Judge Charles A. Legge requesting
that the payment for these taxes be made from that source.
There are various claimants to the funds,
including the IRS, and I am petitioning the court that
that fee of $2.1 million be used in part to pay these
taxes.
Mrs. Alioto did not see this letter when the 1995 return was
filed. Although the 1995 return contains a signature for Mrs.
Alioto, she did not sign the 1995 return. Mrs. Alioto and Mayor
Alioto did not have any conversations regarding the 1995 return
at the time it was filed, nor was she then aware that Mayor
Alioto had filed the 1995 return on Mrs. Alioto’s behalf.6
In December 1996 the IRS seized $2,026,153.35 which was
community property, representing Mayor Alioto’s entire fee (New
England Patriots case fees) earned in 1996 for legal services
rendered in the matter of Sullivan v. Natl. Football League (New
England Patriots case). Mayor Alioto sought to have the IRS
apply the seized New England Patriots case fees to satisfy Mayor
Alioto’s and Mrs. Alioto’s liabilities for 1995 and 1996. A Form
8275, Disclosure Statement, attached to the 1996 return, states:
“See attached letter to IRS attorney (Northern California
6
The same is true for Mrs. Alioto’s 1993 and 1994 tax
years, no longer in issue. Petitioner, however, does not contend
that the 1993, 1994, and 1995 returns were not joint returns
because she did not sign them.
- 9 -
District). Taxpayer takes the position that the 1996 tax is paid
in full from the $2,100,000 fee earned in 1996 which the IRS
subsequently impounded.” In the referenced attached letter Mayor
Alioto wrote: “that when the tax on the $2,100,000 becomes due
(1996 return), that too should be paid from that source. The
equity of this position is inherent in the fact that the
$2,100,000 represented community earnings of my wife Kathleen”.
The letter further stated: “It does not seem equitable or legal
that Kathleen Alioto’s community earnings should pay joint
obligations of my former wife, particularly when the $2,100,000
fee was earned from a case involving Kathleen Alioto’s family.”7
In December 1996 the IRS served a levy regarding Mayor
Alioto’s 1976 “separate”8 tax liability on Drug Barn to collect
any legal fees owed to Mayor Alioto. In May 1998, when the Drug
Barn legal fee was awarded to Mayor Alioto, the IRS agreed to
release a portion of the Drug Barn legal fee to pay the current
year’s tax that would be due on the income.
In January 1997 Mayor Alioto sent a letter to the U.S.
Attorney’s Office confirming that he had designated that the
amount due on the 1995 return be paid from funds he “recently
7
Mrs. Alioto’s father was a former owner of the New
England Patriots.
8
We use the term “separate” for convenience. The 1976 and
1977 tax liabilities are “separate” as regards petitioner (i.e.,
they predate Mrs. Alioto’s marriage to Mayor Alioto).
- 10 -
deposited with the court for the benefit of the I.R.S.”. Mayor
Alioto noted that it would be inequitable for the United States
to apply the balance of the New England Patriots case fees solely
to his separate premarital tax debts when the New England
Patriots case fees represented community property, and that an
inequitable application of the New England Patriots case fees
would leave a community property tax debt unpaid at the expense
of Mrs. Alioto. Mrs. Alioto did not see the letter at that time.
Between August 18 and October 3, 1997, David Miller (Mr.
Miller), an estate planning lawyer, met with Mayor Alioto and
Mrs. Alioto to discuss drafting an estate plan for each of them.
Mayor Alioto gave Mr. Miller a list of assets and their
approximate values. Mayor Alioto also disclosed to Mr. Miller $4
million in total debt. Mr. Miller reasonably believed that at
that time Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto had a net worth of $16
million.
On October 15, 1997, Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto filed a
joint Federal income tax return for 1996 (1996 return). The 1996
return listed $772,704 in income tax, $58,222 in self-employment
tax, $6,532 in household employment tax, an estimated tax penalty
of $853, an estimated tax payment of $838,311, and a total
balance due of zero. Before signing the 1996 return, Mayor
Alioto showed it to Mrs. Alioto and asked whether she had any
questions regarding it. Mrs. Alioto reviewed the 1996 return,
- 11 -
and she saw the estimated tax payment of $838,311 and a total
balance due of zero before she signed the return.
When Mrs. Alioto signed the 1996 return, she reasonably
believed that any tax liability shown on the return had been
paid. Mrs. Alioto knew that Mayor Alioto had earned the New
England Patriots case fees, that Mayor Alioto had earned another
$1 million fee in 1997, and that he was attorney of record in a
number of other lawsuits in which he would earn additional
income.
In 1997 Mayor Alioto gave Mrs. Alioto $500,000 to deposit in
a brokerage account with Paine Webber. That same year, without
Mrs. Alioto’s knowledge or consent, Mayor Alioto withdrew over
$110,000 from that brokerage account with Paine Webber. Mrs.
Alioto did not discover until after Mayor Alioto’s death that he
had withdrawn the funds.
Mrs. Alioto reasonably believed that she and her husband had
a high net worth and that Mayor Alioto earned a lot of money each
and every year that they were married. Mayor Alioto’s public and
private personas--those of a highly successful lawyer with
substantial earning capacity, a man of wealth, and a man who was
on top of everything and who was in control--supported Mrs.
Alioto’s aforementioned reasonable belief.
In April 1998 administration of the Estate of Joseph Alioto
(the estate) was commenced, and it is still pending in the San
- 12 -
Francisco Probate Court (the probate case). Mrs. Alioto has
served as sole special administrator, sole executrix, and sole
trustee in the probate case. Creditors, including the IRS and
the California State Franchise Tax Board, filed claims of over
$74 million against the estate. The IRS’s claim in the probate
case, including the liabilities in dispute in this case, totaled
$4,239,834.34.
Mrs. Alioto was shocked, surprised, and stunned to learn the
amounts of the creditors’ claims being asserted against the
estate and that Mayor Alioto had used $18 million of their
community property (income) to pay debts for others (including
Angelina and his children from his marriage to Angelina)
throughout her marriage to Mayor Alioto. After learning the
magnitude of the claims against the estate and how much of her
community property had already been used to pay Mayor Alioto’s
separate debts (including those of Angelina and his children from
his marriage to Angelina), Mrs. Alioto filed a creditor’s claim
in the probate proceeding for the amounts of her separate and
community property that had already been used to pay Mayor
Alioto’s separate debts (including those of Angelina and his
children from his marriage to Angelina). None of her claim will
be paid.
In June 1998 Mrs. Alioto, in her capacity as special
administrator of the estate, recovered a legal fee due to Mayor
- 13 -
Alioto. The IRS seized $51,873 of this fee and applied it to
Mayor Alioto’s liability for 1976.
In July 1998 Mrs. Alioto secured employment as a consultant
for Connell & Co. During 1998 Mrs. Alioto earned $50,000.
Mrs. Alioto’s family health insurance terminated at the time
of Mayor Alioto’s death. During 1998 Mrs. Alioto incurred health
care expenses for treating family members’ grief and depression
over Mayor Alioto’s death. Additionally, Mrs. Alioto incurred
expenses for treating her daughter’s epilepsy. Mrs. Alioto
reasonably estimated that she incurred medical expenses of
approximately $22,000 in both 1998 and 1999.
In 1998 and 1999 Mrs. Alioto paid for her daughter’s
schooling, the taxes and maintenance on Mrs. Alioto’s personal
residence, Mayor Alioto’s legal secretary to assist with the
multitude of litigation matters that arose after his death, and
expenses to look for employment.
On or about January 20, 1999, Mrs. Alioto filed a request
for relief pursuant to section 6015 from joint and several
liability for income taxes for 1995 and 1996. Mrs. Alioto
admitted that relief pursuant to section 6015(b) or (c) is not
available for 1995 or 1996, but Mrs. Alioto requested relief
pursuant to section 6015(f) for 1995 and 1996. Appeals Officer
Nelson Wong was assigned to consider Mrs. Alioto’s request.
- 14 -
At the request of Appeals, from March 1999 to April 2000
Revenue Agent Theresa Martin investigated the merits of Mrs.
Alioto’s claim for section 6015 relief. Ms. Martin was assigned
to assess the claim, find the facts, apply the law, and make a
determination.
Ms. Martin held three meetings with Mrs. Alioto’s
representative. Mrs. Alioto’s counsel turned over to the IRS all
requested documents that she was able to obtain. Additionally,
Mrs. Alioto’s counsel orally gave Ms. Martin the information that
she requested when no documents were available. It took Ms.
Martin 3 days to review all the documentation that Mrs. Alioto
and/or Mrs. Alioto’s counsel provided her.
When Ms. Martin met with Mrs. Alioto’s counsel, Ms. Martin
was alerted to the number of creditors who had filed claims
against the estate and the amounts of additional liabilities
being discovered in Mayor Alioto’s probate proceedings. Mrs.
Alioto’s counsel explained to Ms. Martin Mrs. Alioto’s fiduciary
duties as trustee of the trust. Mrs. Alioto’s counsel further
explained to Ms. Martin that the assets transferred into trusts
were not Mrs. Alioto’s personal assets.
Ms. Martin consulted with respondent’s Collection Division
regarding amounts to allow for basic living expenses. Ms. Martin
did not request a financial statement from Mrs. Alioto, and the
Collection Division did not have one either.
- 15 -
On August 19, 1999, real property in Auburn, California,
titled in Mrs. Alioto’s name, was sold for $2.4 million.
Pursuant to a lien on the property, the IRS received
$1,841,197.39 from the sale of the real property in Auburn,
California, and applied these proceeds to Mayor Alioto’s separate
liability for 1976.
By September 1999 the IRS applied $955,374.85 of the over $2
million of the New England Patriots case fees it had seized to
the premarital (regarding Mrs. Alioto) 1977 tax liability of
Mayor Alioto and Angelina, paying it in full. After satisfying
the 1977 liability, around September 1999 the IRS applied the
balance of the New England Patriots case fees, over $1 million,
it seized to the premarital (regarding Mrs. Alioto) 1976 tax
liability of Mayor Alioto. Mrs. Alioto’s community property was
used to relieve Angelina (Mayor Alioto’s former spouse) of
liability for 1976 and to pay Mayor Alioto’s liability for 1977
while Mrs. Alioto remained liable for the joint community
liability for 1995 and 1996.
During 1999 Mrs. Alioto worked for Connell & Co. and the San
Francisco Unified School District. During 1999 she earned
$179,000--$30,000 of which was a fee from the estate. For 1999
she paid $79,000 in taxes.
On October 26, 1999, the Court entered a stipulated
decision, agreed to by Mrs. Alioto and respondent, in docket No.
- 16 -
3013-95 which ordered and decided that pursuant to section
6015(b) Mrs. Alioto was relieved, in full, of liability for
deficiencies in income tax and section 6662 penalties for 1989,
1990, and 1991.
During 2000 Mrs. Alioto secured a position as a fundraiser
for the City College of San Francisco (City College). She still
was employed in that position, at will,9 by City College as of
the time of trial. In 2003 she earned $121,000. Mrs. Alioto
received a 4-percent raise in 2004, but she received no raises
before 2004 because of cutbacks. In order to have pension
“rights” at City College, Mrs. Alioto would have to work for 10
years (until she was age 67).
In October 2000, pursuant to the probate court’s oral
instruction, Mrs. Alioto placed all the cash she held as trustee
of the Alioto Living Trust10 into a blocked account subject to
probate court supervision. The probate court authorized Mrs.
Alioto to use $405,000 to pay the trust’s Federal and State 2000
income taxes.
9
Mrs. Alioto could lose this job at any time--especially
if the chancellor or trustees of City College (who are elected
every 2 years) change.
10
On Oct. 3, 1997, the Alioto Living Trust document was
executed.
- 17 -
During 2001 and 2002 Mrs. Alioto or her counsel provided
respondent’s Appeals Office copies of pleadings filed in the
probate court and information about the probate proceedings.
During 2002 the probate referee made a final recommendation
that Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence was community property.
The probate judge decided that Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence
was to be sold to pay Mayor Alioto’s creditors. Respondent’s
Appeals Office was advised of the aforementioned decisions. In
January 2003 the Appeals officer assigned to Mrs. Alioto’s case
inserted into the administrative record a newspaper article that
reported that Mrs. Alioto was being forced to sell her personal
residence in order to pay Mayor Alioto’s debts.
On May 29, 2003, respondent determined that Mrs. Alioto was
not entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(f) for 1995 or
1996.
In September 2003, pursuant to an order from the probate
court, Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence was sold for $6.6
million. On October 29, 2003, pursuant to additional orders from
the probate court, the following amounts were paid to creditors
of the estate:
- 18 -
Creditor Amount
IRS $175,968.06
Angelina 325,945.21
Fred Furth 571,884.95
Alioto Fish Co. 276,657.53
Franchise Tax Board 2,585,756.61
City National Bank 1,036,526.40
Total 4,972,738.76
The balance of the proceeds (approximately $1.6 million) is on
deposit with the probate court. As of November 1, 2003, the
total accrued tax liability for 1995 and 1996 was $1,558,221.54.
As of November 30, 2003, outstanding creditors’ claims against
Mayor Alioto’s estate included:11
Creditor Amount
IRS $5,236,067.90
Franchise Tax Board 876,564.54
Fred Furth 125,248.00
Angelina 579,966.00
Richard Schwartz 210,000.00
Maxwell Keith 42,500.00
Arlene Harris 92,000.00
Pacific Bank 551,226.45
Total 7,713,572.89
Between 1994 and 1999 respondent collected $4,685,444.47
from the community income and assets of Mrs. Alioto and Mayor
Alioto. Respondent applied the entire $4,685,444.47 collected to
Mayor Alioto’s separate, premarital tax liabilities for 1976 and
1977. During the process of collecting Mayor Alioto’s 1976 and
1977 tax liabilities and Mayor Alioto’s and Mrs. Alioto’s joint
11
Not including the IRS, the amount of outstanding
creditors’ claims as of Nov. 30, 2003, totaled $2,477,504.99.
- 19 -
tax liabilities, respondent’s collection officers did not have
any direct contact with Mrs. Alioto.
There are no unpaid tax liabilities due from Mrs. Alioto
regarding her timely filed tax returns for 1997 through 2002.
As of the date of trial, Mrs. Alioto had approximately $7,000 in
a savings account and $99,000 deposited in retirement plans and
did not own a car. The Social Security Administration estimated
her benefits will be $600 per month. In June 2008 Mrs. Alioto
turned 64 years old.
OPINION
I. Jurisdiction and Motion To Vacate
Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental and may
be raised by a party or on the Court’s own motion. Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328 (2000). In petitioner’s motion
to vacate our order of dismissal and responses thereto,
petitioner and respondent agree that pursuant to the Tax Relief
and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA), Pub. L. 109-432, div. C,
sec. 408, 120 Stat. 3061, the Tax Court now has jurisdiction over
the case at bar. The fact that the parties agree that the Court
has jurisdiction over these issues is not sufficient to provide
us with such jurisdiction; the Court still must determine that
Congress has granted us jurisdiction. See Evans Publg., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 242, 247 n.5 (2002).
- 20 -
TRHCA, div. C, sec. 408, amended the Tax Court’s section
6015 jurisdiction. TRHCA provided the Tax Court with
jurisdiction over “stand-alone” section 6015(f) cases where the
liability for the taxes arose or remained unpaid on or after the
date of the enactment of TRHCA (i.e., December 20, 2006). Id.
As of December 20, 2006, Mrs. Alioto’s income taxes for 1995
and 1996 remained unpaid. Accordingly, the Court has
jurisdiction to determine whether Mrs. Alioto is entitled to
section 6015(f) relief for 1995 and 1996. Therefore we shall
grant Mrs. Alioto’s motion to vacate order of dismissal, as
supplemented.
II. Motion for Reconsideration
Respondent objects to the motion for reconsideration as “the
court’s opinion in this case [Alioto I] correctly interpreted and
applied section 6015(f) and applicable case law to this case when
the opinion in this case was issued.” We agree that the Court
correctly applied the caselaw as it existed at the time the Court
issued Alioto I; however, we disagree that the motion for
reconsideration should be denied.12 After the Court’s decision
in Alioto I the law and the Court’s jurisdiction changed.
12
The granting of a motion for reconsideration rests
within the discretion of the Court, and we will not grant a
motion for reconsideration unless the party seeking
reconsideration shows unusual circumstances or substantial error.
See, e.g., Alexander v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 467, 469 (1990),
affd. without published opinion sub nom. Stell v. Commissioner,
999 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1993).
- 21 -
Pursuant to section 6015 as amended by TRHCA, on the facts of the
case at bar the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether Mrs.
Alioto is entitled to section 6015(f) relief for 1995 and 1996.
Accordingly, we shall grant Mrs. Alioto’s motion for
reconsideration.
III. Scope of Review
Respondent argues that when the Court determines whether
Mrs. Alioto is entitled to section 6015(f) relief for 1995 and
1996, the Court is limited to the administrative record and may
not consider evidence introduced at trial that was not included
in the administrative record. We disagree.
In Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32 (2004) (Ewing II),13
vacated 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006) (Ewing III), the Court held
that our determination of whether a taxpayer is entitled to
section 6015(f) relief is made in a trial de novo and the Court
may consider evidence and matters at trial which were not
included in the administrative record. In Ewing III, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--the court to which appeal
of this case lies--vacated Ewing II for lack of jurisdiction but
did not address our holding as to the scope of review. Ewing
13
In “Ewing I”, Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494
(2002), revd. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006), we held that the
Court had jurisdiction to determine whether equitable relief was
available to taxpayer for underpayment of tax shown on joint
return (i.e., over “stand-alone” sec. 6015(f) cases).
- 22 -
III, supra at 1015 (“In light of our conclusion that the Tax
Court did not have jurisdiction over Ewing’s petition, we vacate
the Tax Court decision in Ewing II, 122 T.C. 32, addressing the
scope of review by the Tax Court”), id. n.6 (“Because we conclude
that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction, we decline to address the
other issues [i.e., the scope of review] raised in the
Commissioner’s appeal.”), vacating Ewing II and revg. 118 T.C.
494 (2002).
In Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. __ (2008), we recently
addressed the aforementioned issue of the scope of our review in
section 6015(f) cases. For the reasons stated in Porter and
Ewing II, when the Court determines whether a taxpayer is
entitled to section 6015(f) relief the Court’s determination is
made in a trial de novo and the Court is not limited to the
administrative record; i.e., the Court may consider evidence and
matters at trial which were not part of the administrative
record.14 Porter v. Commissioner, supra; Ewing II, supra.
IV. Section 6015(f) Relief
Section 6015(f) allows relief to a requesting spouse “if--
(1) taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold the individual liable”. The Commissioner
14
We note that if we were limited to reviewing the
administrative record, it is likely that the outcome in this case
would be different.
- 23 -
applies Rev. Proc. 2000-15,15 sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448, to
determine whether to grant equitable relief. See, e.g.,
Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147-152 (2003); Jonson
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125-126 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d
1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Nihiser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-
135.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01 has seven general requirements
that all requesting spouses must meet for relief pursuant to
section 6015(f). Respondent concedes that Mrs. Alioto meets the
guidelines for relief set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.01(1)-(7).
A. Safe Harbor: Rev. Proc. 2000-15, Sec. 4.02
Revenue Procedure 2000-15, supra, also has a safe harbor
whereby the IRS ordinarily will grant relief pursuant to section
6015(f) (safe harbor). Nihiser v. Commissioner, supra; Gonce v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-328 (discussing identical
provisions in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, 2003-2 C.B. 296,
298); Billings v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-234 (“The
procedure also has a safe harbor--three conditions that, if met,
15
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, has been superseded
by Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296. The new revenue
procedure applies only to requests for relief filed on or after
Nov. 1, 2003, or those pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no
preliminary determination letter has been issued as of that date.
Id. sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 299. In May 2003 respondent
determined Mrs. Alioto was not eligible for sec. 6015 relief.
Accordingly, we apply Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, to this case.
- 24 -
will ordinarily trigger a grant of relief.”); Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. at 448 (titled “Circumstances under which
equitable relief under § 6015(f) will ordinarily be granted”).
The safe harbor grants relief to a requesting spouse if the
requesting spouse meets three conditions.16 Nihiser v.
Commissioner, supra; see Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02.
1. First Safe Harbor Condition
The first safe harbor condition is:
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;
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(a). Mayor Alioto died in
January 1998. Accordingly, we conclude that Mrs. Alioto
satisfied the first safe harbor condition.
16
Relief that the Commissioner ordinarily grants pursuant
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1), 2000-1 C.B. at 448, is subject
to the limitations set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02,
2000-1 C.B. at 448--(a) if the return is or has been adjusted to
reflect an understatement of tax, relief will be available only
to the extent of the liability shown on the return before any
such adjustment; and (b) relief will only be available to the
extent that the unpaid liability is allocable to the
nonrequesting spouse. Respondent did not address Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02(2), on brief. Accordingly, we deem that
respondent has waived any issue regarding Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
sec. 4.02(2). See Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683
(1989); Levert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-333, affd.
without published opinion 956 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1992).
- 25 -
2. Second Safe Harbor Condition
The second safe harbor condition is:
At the time the return was signed, the requesting
spouse had no knowledge or reason to know that the tax
would not be paid. The requesting spouse must
establish that it was reasonable for the requesting
spouse to believe that the nonrequesting spouse would
pay the reported liability. If a requesting spouse
would otherwise qualify for relief under this section,
except for the fact that the requesting spouse had no
knowledge or reason to know of only a portion of the
unpaid liability, then the requesting spouse may be
granted relief only to the extent that the liability is
attributable to such portion; * * *
Id. sec. 4.02(1)(b). This factor is satisfied if the taxpayer
reasonably believed when the return was filed that the liability
would be paid by the taxpayer’s spouse. See Van Arsdalen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-48 (the taxpayer reasonably
believed taxes owed would be paid by the spouse); Wiest v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-91 (same).
Respondent argued that Mrs. Alioto would have seen or known
about certain notices of Federal tax liens and levies that were
filed on her community property. Respondent relies on the
testimony of Revenue Officer Cheryl Matthews.
We determine the credibility of each witness, weigh each
piece of evidence, draw appropriate inferences, and choose
between conflicting inferences. See Neonatology Associates, P.A.
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 84 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d
Cir. 2002); see also Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 372 U.S.
108, 114-115 (1963); Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287, 293
- 26 -
(1945); Wilmington Trust Co. v. Helvering, 316 U.S. 164, 167-168
(1942). We decide whether evidence is credible on the basis of
objective facts, the reasonableness of the testimony, and the
demeanor of the witness. Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S.
417, 420-421 (1891); Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th
Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964); Pinder v. United States,
330 F.2d 119, 124-125 (5th Cir. 1964); Concord Consumers Hous.
Coop. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 105, 124 n.21 (1987). We have
evaluated each witness’s testimony by observing his or her
candor, sincerity, and demeanor and by assigning weight to the
elicited testimony. See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v.
Commissioner, supra at 84.
We found Ms. Matthews’s testimony to be general, vague,
conclusory, and/or questionable in certain material respects.
Under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to,
and generally do not, rely on Ms. Matthews’s testimony. See
Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688,
689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159;
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). The Court need
not accept at face value a witness’s testimony that is otherwise
questionable. See Archer v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 270, 273 (5th
Cir. 1955), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Feb.
18, 1954; Weiss v. Commissioner, 221 F.2d 152, 156 (8th Cir.
- 27 -
1955), affg. T.C. Memo. 1954-51; Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-467. This is so even when the testimony is
uncontroverted if it is improbable, unreasonable, or
questionable. Archer v. Commissioner, supra; Weiss v.
Commissioner, supra; see Quock Ting v. United States, supra.
We conclude the evidence that respondent relies on is not
credible or probative and is insufficient to conclude that Mrs.
Alioto saw or knew about any notices of liens or tax levies.
Mrs. Alioto’s testimony on this matter, however, was credible.
Upon the basis of Mrs. Alioto’s credible testimony, we find that
Mrs. Alioto never saw or knew about any notices of liens or tax
levies or any seizures of property until after Mayor Alioto’s
death.
Mrs. Alioto credibly testified that she did not learn about
the tax liabilities in issue (for 1995 or 1996) until after Mayor
Alioto’s death and that she was not aware of Mayor Alioto’s tax
problems or any dispute with regard to the New England Patriots
case fees when she signed the 1996 tax return. Mrs. Alioto never
met with or spoke with anyone at the accounting firm that
prepared Mayor Alioto and Mrs. Alioto’s joint tax returns for the
years in issue (or for any year she was married to Mayor Alioto).
Furthermore, we find Mrs. Alioto’s beliefs regarding her
financial well-being and solvency--until she learned otherwise
after Mayor Alioto’s death in 1998--to be credible.
- 28 -
Mrs. Alioto did not learn of the MSA Mayor Alioto had
executed until after his death. At the time the 1995 and 1996
tax returns were filed, Mrs. Alioto did not know or have reason
to know that Mayor Alioto had obligated himself to indemnify and
defend Angelina with respect to Mayor Alioto and Angelina’s
outstanding joint Federal and State tax liabilities for 1976 and
1977.
The 1995 return, filed in October 1996 but which Mrs. Alioto
did not sign and never discussed with Mayor Alioto, reported a
total balance due of $63,115. At that time Mayor Alioto was due
legal fees totaling approximately $2.1 million from the New
England Patriots case. Mayor Alioto was involved in the New
England Patriots case because the case involved Mrs. Alioto’s
family.
The 1996 return, filed in October 1997, reported a balance
due of zero. Mrs. Alioto reviewed the 1996 return, and she saw
an estimated tax payment of $838,311 and a total balance due of
zero, before she signed it. When Mrs. Alioto signed the 1996
return, she reasonably believed that any tax liability shown on
the 1996 return had been paid. Mrs. Alioto knew that Mayor
Alioto had earned the New England Patriots case fees, that Mayor
Alioto had earned another $1 million fee in 1997, and that Mayor
Alioto had a number of other lawsuits that he was attorney of
record for in which he would earn additional income. In fall
- 29 -
1997 Mrs. Alioto reasonably believed, on the basis of statements
made by Mayor Alioto, that he had cases pending that would bring
in more money than he had earned in his entire career.
During August through October 1997 Mayor Alioto and Mrs.
Alioto met with an estate planning lawyer to discuss drafting an
estate plan for each of them. Mayor Alioto gave the attorney a
list of assets and liabilities and their approximate values. The
attorney reasonably believed that at that time Mayor Alioto and
Mrs. Alioto had a net worth of $16 million. Accordingly, we find
that it was reasonable for Mrs. Alioto to believe that her net
worth as of October 1997 was $16 million. Mrs. Alioto reasonably
believed that she and her husband had a high net worth and that
Mayor Alioto earned a lot of money every year that they were
married.
In Gonce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-328, we held that
the second criterion in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, that at
the time the joint return was signed the requesting spouse had no
knowledge or reason to know that the tax would not be paid and
that it was reasonable to believe that the nonrequesting spouse
would pay the liability, was not satisfied. In Gonce, the
taxpayer and her husband reported underpayments on their 2000 and
2001 Federal tax returns, both of which were signed by the
taxpayer, of $1,188 and $2,528, respectively. Id. When those
returns were filed, the taxpayer knew that her husband always
- 30 -
bought on credit and that she and her husband spent more than
they made. We concluded that the taxpayer did not show that it
was reasonable to rely on her husband to pay the tax due for
those years.
The facts in the case at bar are diametrically opposed to
those in Gonce. Mrs. Alioto credibly testified that Mayor Alioto
had paid off over $18 million in debts. Mrs. Alioto reasonably
believed, when the returns for 1995 and 1996 were filed, that
Mayor Alioto would continue to pay off any debts that he owed.
During Mayor Alioto’s negotiations with the IRS regarding the
Aliotos’ outstanding joint tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996,
Mayor Alioto worked arduously to protect the well-being and
financial interests of Mrs. Alioto. Furthermore, if Mrs. Alioto
had seen the 1995 return in October 1996, showing a balance due,
she would have expected Mayor Alioto to pay the liability in full
as she thought Mayor Alioto paid all their taxes. Mrs. Alioto
credibly testified that she did not recall ever being asked to
sign a joint tax return with Mayor Alioto that reflected a
balance due. Mrs. Alioto credibly testified that had she seen a
balance due on any tax return, she would have expected Mayor
Alioto to pay it on account of his history of paying off their
obligations/debts and the debts of his son.
During the years in issue Mrs. Alioto reasonably believed
that Mayor Alioto was a man of wealth, a man who was on top of
- 31 -
everything, and a man in control. The credible evidence
establishes that Mayor Alioto believed it was his absolute duty
to care and provide for his family. From 1980 to 1998 Mrs.
Alioto cared for Mayor Alioto and raised their children. During
this time Mayor Alioto did not want Mrs. Alioto to work outside
the home. Furthermore, Mayor Alioto was in charge of the family
finances and tax matters. Mrs. Alioto did not sign the 1995
return and was not aware that any tax was due for 1995 or 1996
until years later. These facts further support the conclusion
that Mrs. Alioto did not know, or have reason to know, of the
1995 and 1996 underpayments. See Dowell v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2007-326 (concluding that the taxpayer did not know, or
have reason to know because: (1) The requesting spouse did not
sign the return for the year in issue; (2) the requesting spouse
was not aware that any tax was due for the year in issue until
years later; and (3) the nonrequesting spouse handled all tax
matters for the couple and did not inform the requesting spouse
of financial matters).
Accordingly, we conclude that Mrs. Alioto satisfied the
second safe harbor condition.
- 32 -
3. Third Safe Harbor Condition
The third safe harbor condition is:
The requesting spouse will suffer economic hardship if
relief is not granted. For purposes of this section,
the determination of whether a requesting spouse will
suffer economic hardship will be made by the
Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate, and will
be based on rules similar to those provided in
§ 301.6343-1(b)(4) of the Regulations on Procedure
and Administration.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(c).
Generally, economic hardship exists if collection of the tax
liability will cause the taxpayer to be unable to pay reasonable
basic living expenses. Butner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-
136. The ability to pay reasonable basic living expenses is
determined by considering the following nonexclusive factors:
(1) The taxpayer’s age, employment status and history, ability to
earn, and number of dependents; (2) an amount reasonably
necessary for food, clothing, housing, medical expenses,
transportation, current tax payments, and expenses necessary to
the taxpayer’s production of income; (3) the cost of living in
the taxpayer’s geographic area; (4) the amount of property
available to satisfy the taxpayer’s expenses; (5) any
extraordinary circumstances; i.e., special education expenses, a
medical catastrophe, or a natural disaster; and (6) any other
factor bearing on economic hardship. Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see Gonce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2007-328; Van Arsdalen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-48.
- 33 -
These provisions envision consideration of a taxpayer’s
retirement needs where appropriate. Van Arsdalen v.
Commissioner, supra.
In 1966 Mrs. Alioto received a B.A. in English literature
from Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart in Purchase, New
York, and she began work as a third grade teacher in Bedford-
Stuyvesant, New York, at an annual salary of $5,400. For the
next 3 years Mrs. Alioto worked as an elementary school teacher
at P.S. 113 in Harlem, New York. She was paid less than $6,000
per year for this job. From 1971 to 1973 Mrs. Alioto taught
emotionally disturbed children in an inner city neighborhood of
Boston, Massachusetts. In 1973 Mrs. Alioto was elected a member
of the Boston Public School Board. From 1974 to 1980 she served
without pay as a member of the Boston Public School Board.
During this period Mrs. Alioto went back to school, and in 1980
she earned a Ph.D. in education. From 1980 to 1998 Mrs. Alioto
cared for Mayor Alioto, raised their children, and did not work
outside the home.
In April 1998 administration of the estate was commenced.
Creditors, including the IRS and the California State Franchise
Tax Board, filed claims in excess of $74 million against the
estate. The claim filed by the IRS in the probate case,
including the liabilities in dispute in this case, totaled
$4,239,834.34. At that time, Mrs. Alioto was shocked, surprised,
- 34 -
and stunned to learn the amounts of the creditors’ claims that
were being asserted against the estate. After learning the
magnitude of the claims against the estate and how much of her
community property had already been used to pay Mayor Alioto’s
separate debts, Mrs. Alioto filed a creditor’s claim in the
probate proceeding. None of her claim will be paid.
When the IRS employee assigned to Mrs. Alioto’s section 6015
case met with Mrs. Alioto’s counsel, she was alerted to the
number of creditors who had filed claims against the estate and
the amounts of additional liabilities being discovered in Mayor
Alioto’s probate proceedings. Neither the IRS employee assigned
to Mrs. Alioto’s section 6015 case nor the Collection Division
requested a financial statement from Mrs. Alioto.
During 2001 and 2002 Mrs. Alioto or her counsel provided
respondent’s Appeals Office copies of pleadings filed in the
probate court and information about the probate proceedings.
During 2002 the probate referee made a final recommendation that
Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence was community property. The
probate judge decided that Mrs. Alioto’s personal residence was
to be sold to pay Mayor Alioto’s creditors. Respondent’s Appeals
Office was advised of these decisions. Additionally, in January
2003 the Appeals officer assigned to Mrs. Alioto’s case inserted
into the administrative record a newspaper article that reported
- 35 -
that Mrs. Alioto was being forced to sell her personal residence
in order to pay Mayor Alioto’s debts.
During 1998, Mrs. Alioto earned $50,000. Mrs. Alioto’s
family health insurance terminated in 1998 (at the time of Mayor
Alioto’s death). During 1999, Mrs. Alioto earned $179,000--
$30,000 of which was a fee from the estate. For 1999, Mrs.
Alioto paid $79,000 in taxes. Mrs. Alioto incurred medical
expenses for treating, among other things, her daughter’s
epilepsy. Mrs. Alioto reasonably estimated that she incurred
medical expenses of approximately $22,000 in both 1998 and 1999.
During 2000, Mrs. Alioto secured a position as a fundraiser
for the City College of San Francisco (City College). She still
was employed in that position by City College as of the time of
trial. However, this position is a year-to-year job with no
tenure--Mrs. Alioto could lose her job at any time, especially if
the chancellor or trustees of City College (who are elected every
2 years) changed.
In 2003 Mrs. Alioto earned $121,000. Mrs. Alioto received a
4-percent raise in 2004, but she received no raises before 2004.
To have pension “rights” at City College, Mrs. Alioto would have
to work for 10 years (until she was age 67).
In December 2, 2004, respondent served on the Clerk of the
San Francisco Superior Court, Bank of the West, Oakland,
California, Mrs. Alioto, and her counsel separate notices of levy
- 36 -
with a total amount due of $1,628,235.48. The notices of levy
indicated that $129,842.97 was for her 1995 tax year and that
$1,498,392.51 was for her 1996 tax year.
As of the date of trial Mrs. Alioto had approximately $7,000
in a savings account and $99,000 deposited in retirement plans
and did not own a car. The Social Security Administration
estimated her benefits will be $600 per month. In June 2008 Mrs.
Alioto turned 64 years old. As of December 20, 2006, Mrs.
Alioto’s balances due for 1995 and 1996 were $153,501 and
$1,832,010, a very substantial sum given her financial situation.
The liabilities in issue would cause Mrs. Alioto significant
hardship, and she provided sufficient information to show her
liabilities significantly exceeded her assets. See Farmer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-74.
Considering Mrs. Alioto’s age, employment status and
history, ability to earn, and number of dependents; the amounts
reasonably necessary for food, clothing, housing, medical
expenses, transportation, current tax payments, and expenses
necessary to her production of income; the cost of living in her
geographic area; and the amount of property available to satisfy
her expenses, we find that she would suffer economic hardship
because payment of the underlying liabilities would prevent her
from paying reasonable basic living expenses. See sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Butner v.
- 37 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-136; Farmer v. Commissioner, supra.
Accordingly, we conclude that Mrs. Alioto has satisfied the third
safe harbor condition.
B. Conclusion
Mrs. Alioto satisfies the safe harbor conditions in Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02. Accordingly, respondent’s
determination that Mrs. Alioto did not qualify for relief
pursuant to section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion; i.e., it
was arbitrary, capricious, and without sound basis in law or
fact.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.