T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-113
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CARON WILMA RIGANTI, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 23757-07S. Filed August 11, 2010.
Caron Wilma Riganti, pro se.
Steven W. LaBounty, for respondent.
CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: This section 6015(e)1 case
was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463. Pursuant
to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the
relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as
precedent for any other case.
In a final notice of determination dated July 19, 2007,
respondent denied petitioner’s claim for section 6015 relief with
respect to the joint and several liability arising from the 2004
and 2005 joint Federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and
Marc H. Riganti (petitioner’s former spouse). Because the tax
liability for each year results from an underpayment of the tax
shown on the joint return, we agree with respondent that she does
not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) or (c) for either
year. That being so, we consider, de novo, her entitlement to
equitable relief under section 6015(f). See Porter v.
Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203 (2009).
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Missouri.
Petitioner and her former spouse married each other in June
1986. They separated in September 2005 and were divorced in
October 2006. They have four children.
In connection with their divorce, in October 2006 petitioner
and her former spouse entered into a “Marital Separation
Agreement” (the agreement). Various unpaid marital debts are
- 3 -
noted and allocated to one or the other of them in the agreement.
For the most part, the marital debts are split equally between
petitioner and her former spouse, who routinely failed to pay his
“fair share”. This equal split also applies to the net proceeds
that were expected to result from the future sale of the marital
residence. The agreement, however, does not address the unpaid
Federal income tax liabilities that existed at the time.
Petitioner was employed during both years in issue. For
2004 her wages totaled $43,233, from which Federal income tax
withholdings totaled $3,544. For 2005 her wages totaled $59,482,
from which Federal income tax withholdings totaled $7,786.
While married to each other petitioner and her former spouse
routinely filed joint Federal income tax returns. Petitioner
relied upon her former spouse to prepare and to file the joint
return for any given year. As with prior years, for 2004 and
2005 petitioner provided her tax information to her former spouse
so that he could prepare and file the income tax returns for
those years as well. As in some other years, petitioner neither
reviewed nor signed the 2004 or 2005 joint return.2
2
Respondent considered and rejected petitioner’s suggestion
that neither the 2004 nor the 2005 return should be treated as
her return. We agree with respondent, and under the
circumstances see no need for any further discussion on the
point. See, e.g., Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1,
12-13 (1971); Heim v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 270, 273-274 (1956),
affd. 251 F.2d 44 (8th Cir. 1958); Howell v. Commissioner, 10
T.C. 859 (1948), affd. per curiam 175 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1949);
(continued...)
- 4 -
The 2004 joint return, filed October 17, 2005, shows a
$13,739 income tax liability, of which $4,833 was not paid with
the return. The 2005 joint return, filed June 8, 2006, shows a
$20,114 income tax liability, of which $2,742 was not paid with
the return.
As best we can determine from the record, petitioner became
aware of the 2004 and 2005 unpaid income tax liabilities when she
received notice that expected Federal income tax refunds from
2002 and/or 2003 would be applied to 2004 and/or 2005
liabilities.
In a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, and Form
12510, Questionnaire for Requesting Spouse, both timely submitted
to respondent in November 2006, petitioner sought relief from the
unpaid portions of the outstanding income tax liabilities for
2004 and 2005. In the above-referenced final notice, respondent
denied that relief because, among other reasons, petitioner:
(1) Failed to establish a reasonable belief the tax liabilities
reported on the returns would be paid; and (2) failed to
establish that she would suffer economic hardship if not relieved
of the tax liabilities.
2
(...continued)
Magee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-263; Boyle v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-294; Evans v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1982-700; sec. 1.6013-1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.
- 5 -
Discussion
In general, spouses “may make a single return jointly of
income taxes”. Sec. 6013(a). Like most decisions, an
individual’s decision to file a joint return with the
individual’s spouse has consequences. One consequence to the
individual is the assumption of an income tax liability for
income not otherwise attributable to the individual. This is so
because if for any given year a joint return is made by spouses,
then with respect to that year “the tax shall be computed on the
aggregate income and the liability with respect to the tax shall
be joint and several.” Sec. 6013(d)(3); see sec. 1.6013-4(b),
Income Tax Regs. “[J]oint and several liability” for the tax
shown on a return means that although the tax may be collected
only once, each spouse is entirely responsible for the payment of
the unpaid portions of the tax without apportionment between
them. Cluck v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 326 n.4 (1995); Pesch
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 100 (1982); Grubich v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-194. In turn, this means that the Commissioner
may, as he sees fit, collect the tax from either one. Cf. Pesch
v. Commissioner, supra.
Subject to various conditions and in a variety of ways set
forth in section 6015, an individual who has made a joint return
with his or her spouse for a year may seek relief from the joint
and several liability arising from that joint return. Except as
- 6 -
otherwise provided in section 6015, the taxpayer bears the burden
of proving entitlement to the relief contemplated by that
section. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311
(2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004).
If, as in this case, a taxpayer does not qualify for relief
under section 6015(b) or (c) because the underlying income tax
liability is attributable to an underpayment of tax, then relief
under section 6015 is limited to that provided in section
6015(f). That section provides for relief if, taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable
to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency.
Sec. 6015(f)(1).
The Commissioner has issued revenue procedures listing the
factors normally considered in determining whether relief should
be granted under section 6015(f). Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2
C.B. 296, modifying and superseding Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1
C.B. 447.3 Respondent has taken those factors into account.
Furthermore, the application of those factors supports
respondent’s denial of relief, and petitioner does not suggest
otherwise.
3
The guidelines set forth in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B.
296, are effective for requests for relief filed, as in this
case, on or after Nov. 1, 2003. Id. sec. 7, 2003-2 C.B. at 299.
- 7 -
Petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief was prompted by
her belief, triggered by some forced collection action, that she
would be required to pay the full amounts of the unpaid portions
of the 2004 and 2005 income tax liabilities arising from the
joint return filed for each year. As petitioner views the
matter, the 2004 and 2005 income tax liabilities should be
treated in a manner consistent with the other marital debts taken
into account in the agreement; that is, she and her former spouse
should each be responsible for one-half of the tax liability for
each year. She is not so much seeking relief from those
liabilities as she is seeking some assurance that her former
spouse will be required to pay what she considers to be his fair
share of those liabilities. Because petitioner’s former spouse
has otherwise failed to live up to other of his financial
obligations, we appreciate petitioner’s concern that she might be
required to pay the full amounts of the outstanding 2004 and 2005
tax liabilities. Her concern, of course, is completely
consistent with the concept of joint and several liability.
We expect it is of no consolation to her to point out that
her former spouse remains equally responsible for payment of the
outstanding tax liabilities. Nevertheless and simply put, the
type of relief she seeks, perhaps available through the local
court having jurisdiction over her divorce from her former
spouse, is outside that contemplated under section 6015.
- 8 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.