T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-121
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WILBERT LEE HAYES, Petitioner, AND
MARLENE HAYES, Intervenor v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11294-08S. Filed August 23, 2010.
Wilbert Lee Hayes, pro se.
Marlene Hayes, pro se.
Jennifer K. Martwick, for respondent.
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to section
7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any
other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent
- 2 -
for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent
section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to relief from joint and several liability for 2004 and
2005. In a notice of deficiency that the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) mailed to petitioner and intervenor, the IRS
determined Federal income tax deficiencies of $1,870.90 and
$3,852.75, for 2004 and 2005, respectively, and an addition to
tax for 2004 of $100 for late filing under section 6651(a)(1) and
denied petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015(b),
(c), or (f) for 2004 and 2005. The deficiency in each year
resulted from: (1) The failure by petitioner and intervenor to
report interest income from their separate bank accounts; (2) the
disallowance of most of the business expense deductions on the
couple’s joint Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business; and (3)
computational reductions to the earned income credit (EIC) and
the additional child tax credit (ACTC) as a result of the first
two adjustments.
Petitioner timely petitioned the Court, seeking full relief
from joint and several liability for 2004 and 2005 while
conceding all of respondent’s adjustments for both years. After
the filing of the petition, an IRS administrative review proposed
partial relief to petitioner. Petitioner rejected the offer,
- 3 -
preferring instead to continue to seek full relief through the
Court. Intervenor, by not filing a petition, likewise accepted
respondent’s determination. Intervenor, in accordance with Rule
325(b), intervened opposing any relief to petitioner. Both
petitioner and intervenor appeared at trial and testified.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence
are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner resided in
Georgia when he filed the petition.
Petitioner was born and raised in DeKalb County, North
Carolina. In 2001 he purchased a house there because it was near
his extended family. After about a 1-year courtship, petitioner
and intervenor married in May 2003. Petitioner had at least two
daughters from a prior relationship who were by then adults.
Intervenor had two teenage sons from a prior relationship.
In 2004 and 2005 petitioner, intervenor, and intervenor’s
two sons lived together in quarters provided by the U.S. Army
near Heidelberg, Germany, not far from a military facility where
intervenor was stationed. Petitioner had retired from the U.S.
Navy at the rank of first class petty officer. He received a
taxable pension from the Navy of $14,616 in 2004 and $15,000 in
2005. His Federal income tax withholdings on the pension
- 4 -
distributions were $351.24 or 2.4 percent for 2004 and $379.56 or
2.5 percent for 2005.
During 2004 and 2005 intervenor was an active-duty member of
the U.S. Army, serving as a supply logistics sergeant. She
earned taxable compensation from the Army of $33,717 in 2004 and
$37,035 in 2005. Her Federal income tax withholdings on her Army
earnings were $1,227 or 3.6 percent for 2004 and $2,185.05 or 5.9
percent for 2005.
The couple maintained separate bank accounts. For example,
petitioner deposited his Navy pension into his separate account,
and likewise intervenor deposited her Army salary into her
separate account.
Petitioner and intervenor started having marital problems
almost immediately after they married. Petitioner enjoyed living
frugally and wanted the couple to save money while intervenor was
more apt to spend what she earned, for instance taking her family
to Italy and London when her mother visited. Intervenor was also
responsible for raising her two sons. While living in Germany,
petitioner made frequent return visits to North Carolina to be
near his remaining family.
One weekend in early 2004, a friend of petitioner who was
working in Germany as a disc jockey (DJ) approached the couple
asking whether petitioner would serve as his paid assistant and
replacement from time to time. Intervenor encouraged petitioner
- 5 -
to accept. Thus, starting in April 2004, petitioner began
serving as a DJ on weekends at nightclubs in Heidelberg on and
off the Army base.
When petitioner was using his friend’s DJ equipment,
petitioner would net only about $35 per night after the equipment
rental and other charges. Because of this, petitioner purchased
his own sound equipment and obtained the necessary insurance
license in Germany. Petitioner typically worked one show on most
of the weekends when he was in Germany, grossing around $250 to
$300 per show. Intervenor helped petitioner with the DJ
activities. She attended the shows, collected money at the door,
and helped “load/unload and pull requested songs.” They
continued the DJ business until November 2005.
In November 2005, because of their worsening marital
problems and other personal issues, petitioner left Germany and
moved back to North Carolina. In December 2005, acting upon
intervenor’s relocation request, the Army reassigned intervenor
to a military base near El Paso, Texas. During this time
intervenor informed petitioner that she was having financial
difficulties. Petitioner flew to El Paso to assist intervenor
and her sons, including using his good credit rating to help her
secure a home to rent. Petitioner and intervenor attempted to
- 6 -
reconcile. At the end of 2005 and for a few months into 2006,
petitioner lived in the El Paso home with intervenor and her
sons.
Sometime in early 2006, petitioner went to Atlanta to
collect a car, furniture, and other belongings that they had
shipped from Germany. On April 3, 2006, petitioner emailed to
intervenor electronic copies of his 2004 and 2005 Forms 1099-R,
Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or
Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for his
Navy pension income so that intervenor could have their Federal
income tax returns prepared. While intervenor was at a cookout,
a military friend gave her a business card for an income tax
preparer, James Washington of Washington Tax Services in El
Paso.1 The slogan on Mr. Washington’s business card said: “Get
most, if not all, of it Back”.
Petitioner was still out of town when intervenor met with
Mr. Washington at his office. Mr. Washington asked intervenor
basic opening questions including the filing status of the couple
1
The Court takes judicial notice that James Washington was
indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas on Nov. 7, 2007, and pleaded guilty to one count of making
a materially false statement that he was a certified public
accountant (C.P.A) who was authorized to represent taxpayers
before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in violation of 18
U.S.C. sec. 1001(a)(3) (2006). See Fed. R. Evid. 201. At the
time of trial Mr. Washington was serving a State jail sentence
for controlled substances possession. No accuracy-related
penalties are at issue in the instant case.
- 7 -
and whether petitioner had any employment in 2004 and 2005.
Intervenor told Mr. Washington that petitioner had “DJed” but
that she did not have any receipts. Mr. Washington assured
intervenor that receipts were not necessary because she and
petitioner had lived in Germany when they conducted the DJ
activities.
Intervenor called petitioner from Mr. Washington’s office.
She conveyed the filing status and no need for substantiation
information that Mr. Washington had told her. Nonetheless,
petitioner still did not want to report any income or expenses
from the DJ activity, telling intervenor to report him solely as
“Military Retired and not self-employ”. Intervenor asked
petitioner to talk with Mr. Washington, and they had a brief
conversation.
Intervenor concluded that she would “do the right thing” by
reporting the income and expenses they incurred in the DJ
business. Consequently, “line by line” intervenor and Mr.
Washington completed a Schedule C for each year using
“guesstimates”. They listed petitioner and intervenor as the
“proprietors” of the business and they listed the name of the
business as “DJ Play Music”. For 2004 they reported a loss on
the Schedule C of $18,141 consisting of DJ income of $4,800 and
DJ expenses of $22,941. For 2005 they reported a Schedule C loss
- 8 -
of $24,910, comprising DJ income of $5,690 and DJ expenses of
$30,600.
The Schedule C losses, when combined with the couple’s
Federal income tax withholding credits, dependency exemption
deductions for intervenor’s two sons, standard deductions for
married filing jointly, EIC, and ACTC, resulted in Federal income
tax refund requests of $3,672 for 2004 and $5,846 for 2005. On
or about April 15, 2006, intervenor filed both returns without
petitioner’s review or signature.
Petitioner returned to Texas toward the end of April 2006.
In anticipation of the refunds, on or about May 3, 2006,
intervenor and petitioner went to intervenor’s bank where she
added petitioner’s name to her account. The IRS sent the 2004
refund check to the couple’s El Paso address, and on May 30,
2006, the couple deposited the 2004 refund check into the joint
bank account.
Unlike the return for 2004, the 2005 joint Federal income
tax return that intervenor had filed was not processed by the
IRS. Instead, the IRS returned the 2005 Form 1040, U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, to the couple’s El Paso address,
requesting that petitioner sign the return. Intervenor gave the
return to petitioner to review and sign. He eventually signed
the 2005 Form 1040, and intervenor mailed it back to the IRS.
The IRS received the jointly signed return on June 5, 2006.
- 9 -
The couple’s disagreement over whether to save or spend the
refunds were “the last straw” for petitioner. In mid-June 2006
petitioner withdrew $1,000 from the joint bank account and moved
back to North Carolina, separating permanently from intervenor.
Within a month, petitioner reimbursed intervenor for the
withdrawal.
After petitioner left, intervenor received the IRS refund
check for 2005 at the couple’s El Paso address. She deposited
the check into their joint bank account on July 20, 2006.
Petitioner withdrew $991 on August 3, 2006. Petitioner watched
the account over the Internet as intervenor withdrew the
remainder of the funds. One year later, in August 2007, the
couple divorced.
However, the divorce did not end the couple’s money disputes
because the IRS selected their 2004 and 2005 joint Federal income
tax returns for examination. The examination led to the
following proposed adjustments.
With respect to 2004, the examiner determined that
petitioner and intervenor failed to report $146 and $68,
respectively, in taxable interest income from their separate bank
accounts. Much more significantly, the examiner disallowed
$10,036 of the Schedule C expense deductions for 2004, adjusting
the DJ business bottom line from a loss of $18,141 to a loss of
$8,105. These adjustments resulted in computational reductions
- 10 -
to the EIC and the ACTC, leading to a deficiency for 2004 of
$1,870.90, together with a $100 addition to tax for late filing
under section 6651(a)(1).
Similarly for 2005, the examiner determined that petitioner
and intervenor failed to report $206 and $12, respectively, in
taxable interest income. In addition, the determination
disallowed $23,967 of the business expense deductions for 2005,
causing an adjustment in the Schedule C reporting from a net loss
of $24,910 to a net loss of $943. These adjustments resulted in
computational adjustments to the EIC and the ACTC, culminating in
a deficiency for 2005 of $3,852.75.
At this point, intervenor suggested to petitioner that she
would take responsibility for the aggregate deficiencies for both
years if he would repay her the funds he had withdrawn from their
joint bank account in the summer of 2006. Intervenor prepared a
Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, listing petitioner’s
name and her name, and proposing a payment plan of $400 per
month.
Petitioner declined to sign the installment agreement.
Instead, petitioner provided the examining agent a completed Form
8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, dated April 26, 2007,
requesting that the IRS grant him full relief from all the
Federal income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005. On the
accompanying Form 12510, Questionnaire for Requesting Spouse,
- 11 -
petitioner wrote that “I had no involvement in preparation of
tax” and “My wife control and spend most of the money and I was
not living in Texas when this happen.” Petitioner checked a box
on the form stating that he did not “review the tax return(s)
before signing.”
Intervenor provided the examining agent with a multipage
response to petitioner’s request for relief. In main part,
intervenor asserted:
Mr. Washington (tax-preparer) spoke with my
husband on the phone at the time I was getting the
papers prepared. My husband was very aware that we
wanted to file self employment. Initially, my husband
told me to file Military Retirement but I told him that
Mr. Washington informed me that receipts were not
required since we were filing from overseas.
Intervenor also pointed out that:
The entire [2005 Federal income tax return] packet was
returned, my husband had every opportunity to review
and sign the packet. I did not rush him so I’m not
convinced that he did not review it before he signed
it. He didn’t ask any questions about how we filed
because he was aware of it.
The examiner determined that petitioner was not entitled to
innocent spouse relief but did not issue a formal determination
letter.
A preliminary version of the divorce decree listed
intervenor and petitioner as responsible equally for their
outstanding Federal income tax liabilities; but because of
petitioner’s strong views regarding not having knowledge of the
DJ expense deductions and not receiving a benefit from the
- 12 -
refunds, the final divorce decree dated August 2007 did not
address unpaid taxes.
As previously stated, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency
dated February 6, 2008, to petitioner and intervenor. The notice
adopted without change the examiner’s proposed adjustments, the
resulting deficiencies, and the denial of innocent spouse relief
to petitioner.
Petitioner filed the current petition, and in response,
respondent sent petitioner’s request for innocent spouse relief
to the IRS Cincinnati Centralized Innocent Spouse Operations Unit
(CCISCO). CCISCO contacted intervenor, who provided
documentation and her version of the events. CCISCO recommended
partial relief for petitioner under section 6015(c) for 2004 and
2005.
In respondent’s pretrial memorandum, respondent’s counsel
agreed with the CCISCO recommendation. In particular, respondent
concluded that petitioner did not have actual knowledge of, and
is therefore entitled to relief under section 6015(c) from,
intervenor’s unreported interest income for 2004 and 2005 and
from one-half of the disallowed business expense deductions for
2004 and 2005, which corresponds to intervenor’s share of the
disallowed DJ business expense deductions. Respondent also
concluded that petitioner is entitled to relief from one-half of
- 13 -
the computational adjustments to the EIC and the ACTC resulting
from the two adjustments.
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, the requesting
spouse generally bears the burden of proof with respect to relief
from joint and several liability. See Rule 142(a); Alt v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34
(6th Cir. 2004); Stergios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-15;
McClelland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-121 (and cases cited
therein). However, in an instance as here where the Commissioner
has proposed to give partial relief but the intervenor has
intervened to oppose the relief, the Court may decide the matter
according to the preponderance of the evidence. See Stergios v.
Commissioner, supra.
II. Joint and Several Liability
When taxpayers file a joint return, they compute the tax on
their aggregate income and liability for the resulting tax is
joint and several. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 276, 282 (2000); sec. 1.6013-4(b), Income Tax Regs.
However, the Code provides three possible avenues of relief
through section 6015(b), (c), and (f) from joint and several
liability. Stergios v. Commissioner, supra. All three are
subject to certain separate threshold requirements. In main
- 14 -
part, section 6015(b) may provide relief if at the time of
signing the return the requesting spouse “did not know, and had
no reason to know, that there was such understatement”. Sec.
6015(b)(1)(C). Section 6015(c) may provide relief if at the time
of signing the return, the requesting spouse did not have “actual
knowledge” of the items that gave rise to the deficiency. Sec.
6015(c)(3)(C). Section 6015(f) may provide equitable relief
after “taking into account all the facts and circumstances” if
relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c). Sec.
6015(f)(1) and (2). We now apply these three relief provisions
to the present facts.
III. Section 6015(b)
Section 6015(b)(1) has five conjunctive requirements for
relief to a requesting spouse. Thus, if the requesting spouse
fails to meet any one of the five requirements, he/she does not
qualify for relief. Alt v. Commissioner, supra at 313.
Petitioner immediately satisfies two of them: The couple filed
joint returns for 2004 and 2005,2 and petitioner requested relief
before the IRS began collection activity.
For context, we note that at all stages of the
administrative review respondent denied relief to petitioner
2
Petitioner did not sign the 2004 joint tax return, but he
does not claim this omission as a defense. We will assume that
intervenor filed the 2004 joint return with petitioner’s consent.
See Hennen v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 747, 748 (1961); Moran v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-66.
- 15 -
under section 6015(b) because one or more of the three other
requirements was not met. Next we describe the three
requirements.
A. Attribution--Section 6015(b)(1)(B)
The understatement of tax must be “attributable to erroneous
items of 1 individual filing the joint return”. Sec.
6015(b)(1)(B). That one individual must be the nonrequesting
spouse. Juell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-219.
B. Reason To Know--Section 6015(b)(1)(C)
The requesting spouse must have had no knowledge and “no
reason to know” of the items giving rise to the understatement.
Sec. 6015(b)(1)(C). A requesting spouse has constructive
knowledge or a reason to know of an understatement if “a
reasonably prudent taxpayer under the circumstances of the
[requesting] spouse at the time of signing the return could be
expected to know that the tax liability stated was erroneous or
that further investigation was warranted.” Kistner v.
Commissioner, 18 F.3d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1994),3 revg. T.C.
Memo. 1991-463; Juell v. Commissioner, supra; see also sec.
1.6015-2(c), Income Tax Regs.
Even if the requesting spouse is not aware of sufficient
facts to give him reason to know of the understatement, he may
3
If the decision in this case were appealable, which it is
not because of sec. 7463(b), the appeal would lie in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- 16 -
know enough facts to put him on notice that an understatement
exists. Juell v. Commissioner, supra. In other words, a
taxpayer who files a joint return with his spouse may not turn a
blind eye to the return and thereby avoid the duty to inquire.
McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 734 (1972). Under this duty,
the decisive question is whether “‘a reasonably prudent taxpayer
in [his, the requesting spouse’s] position [would] be led to
question the legitimacy of the deduction.’” Juell v.
Commissioner, supra (quoting Guth v. Commissioner, 897 F.2d 441,
445 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-522).
C. Inequity--Section 6015(b)(1)(D)
The inequity requirement tests whether “taking into account
all the facts and circumstances” it would be “inequitable” to
hold the requesting spouse liable for the understatement. Sec.
6015(b)(1)(D). The analysis is similar to the equity analysis of
section 6015(f). Juell v. Commissioner, supra. The two most
common factors are whether the requesting spouse received a
significant benefit and whether the nonrequesting spouse caused
the understatement through concealment, overreaching, or other
wrongdoing. Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-237. We now
apply the law of section 6015(b) to the present facts and
circumstances.
- 17 -
D. Omitted Interest Income
Because of the attribution requirement of section
6015(b)(1)(B), petitioner is eligible for relief only from
intervenor’s omitted interest income, not from his own. The
amount of intervenor’s unreported interest income was $68 for
2004 and $12 for 2005.
Intervenor and petitioner maintained separate bank accounts
during these 2 years. Intervenor filed the 2004 Federal income
tax return without petitioner’s review. Even though petitioner
signed the 2005 Federal income tax return before filing, a $12
omission is not highly noticeable. Moreover, although petitioner
was aware that intervenor had at least one separate bank account,
intervenor does not claim and the record does not indicate that
petitioner knew or had reason to know that intervenor earned
interest. In fact, petitioner perceived intervenor as a
spendthrift, and may have thought that she maintained solely a
non-interest-bearing checking account.
With respect to section 6015(b)(1)(D), we conclude that it
would not be inequitable to grant relief to petitioner with
respect to the omitted interest income for 2004 and 2005.
Petitioner’s share of the tax refunds that the omitted interest
of $68 and $12 generated for 2004 and 2005, respectively, are far
too small to find that petitioner received a significant benefit
from their exclusion.
- 18 -
For the above reasons, we conclude that petitioner did not
know or have reason to know of intervenor’s omitted interest
income for 2004 and 2005 and that he is entitled to relief under
section 6015(b) for intervenor’s omitted interest income for 2004
and 2005 and for the related computational impacts on EIC and
ACTC.
E. Disallowed DJ Business Expense Deductions
Petitioner’s active participation in the DJ activity gave
him firsthand knowledge that the business generated income and
expenses. Further, the reporting of the DJ business was foremost
in his mind because he explicitly told intervenor during the tax
preparation telephone conversation that he did not want her to
report the DJ income or expenses. These factors clearly put
petitioner on notice and gave him a duty to inquire. We conclude
that a reasonably prudent person in petitioner’s circumstances
would have followed up with his wife or with the tax preparer,
asking whether they reported the DJ activity, and if so, the
amount of income and expenses that the couple claimed and whether
they owed a balance or had a refund due. The conclusion for 2005
is even clearer because petitioner had the 2005 Federal income
tax return in his possession with plenty of time for review
before he signed it. We find that by not making these inquiries
petitioner cast “a blind eye” toward the disallowed DJ business
expense deductions for 2004 and 2005.
- 19 -
Additionally, both petitioner and intervenor were active in
the DJ business. Petitioner served as the DJ while intervenor
attended the shows, helped collect cash at the door, and pulled
music selections. On her own initiative, intervenor reported
that she and petitioner were coproprietors of the business.
Thus, because the DJ business was not attributable solely to
intervenor, the attribution requirement of section 6015(b)(1)(B)
independently precludes relief to petitioner under section
6015(b).
For the above reasons, we sustain respondent’s determination
denying any relief to petitioner under section 6015(b) with
respect to the disallowed DJ business expense deductions.
IV. Section 6015(c)
A. Preliminary Requirements Under Section 6015(c)
Under section 6015(c) the requesting spouse who filed a
joint return for the year(s) in issue elects to be treated as if
he had filed a separate return, thereby limiting his tax
liability to that portion of the deficiency properly allocable to
him. Rowe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-325. To be eligible
for relief under section 6015(c) the electing spouse must satisfy
two pertinent preliminary conditions as of the time of the
election. First, he must no longer be married to, must be
legally separated from, or must have lived for the entirety of
the preceding 12-month period in a different household from the
- 20 -
individual with whom he filed the joint return. Sec.
6015(c)(3)(A). Secondly, he must have made the election after
the deficiency was asserted but no later than 2 years after the
date on which the collection activity began. Sec. 6015(c)(3)(B).
Petitioner satisfies these two initial conditions. Although
petitioner submitted the Form 8857 to the IRS before the State
court finalized his divorce in August 2007, in the present
circumstance the Court does not look to the date of the Form
8857. We are redetermining whether petitioner is entitled to
relief from joint liability with respect to the determined
deficiencies and thus look to the date of petitioner’s petition.
See Stergios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-15; see also
Vetrano v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 272, 283 (2001). Thus, as of
May 12, 2008, the date on which petitioner filed the petition, he
was no longer married to intervenor. Likewise, the IRS had not
commenced collection activity before the petition was filed.
Consequently, petitioner’s election was timely. Accordingly, he
has satisfied the two pertinent threshold requirements of section
6015(c).
B. Allocation of Deficiency
For purposes of section 6015(c), section 6015(d) allocates
the items that gave rise to a deficiency on a joint return to
each spouse as though they had filed separate returns, and the
requesting spouse is liable only for his proportionate share of
- 21 -
the deficiency that results from such allocation. Sec.
6015(d)(1), (3)(A). Thus, section 6015(c) permits an individual
to elect to limit the liability to the portion of the deficiency
that is properly allocable to the electing individual under
section 6015(d). Estate of Capehart v. Commissioner, 125 T.C.
211, 214 (2005); Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-266;
sec. 1.6015-3(a), Income Tax Regs. In other words, petitioner
may be entitled to relief from intervenor’s share of the
deficiencies, but not from his own share.
Applying these principles to the present situation,
respondent determined that under section 6015(c), one-half of the
disallowed DJ business expense deductions for 2004 and 2005 is
attributable to intervenor. We agree. As noted, intervenor was
active in the business and she independently reported that
petitioner and she were coproprietors. Thus, we will analyze
petitioner’s request for full relief under section 6015(c) solely
as applicable to intervenor’s one-half share of the disallowed DJ
business expense deductions, but not for petitioner’s one-half
share.
C. Knowledge Standard Under Section 6015(c)
Congress sought to make relief easier to achieve through
section 6015(c) than section 6015(b) by requiring a higher level
of knowledge under section 6015(c) before denying relief. King
v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 198, 204 (2001). Specifically, the
- 22 -
requesting spouse must not have had “actual knowledge, at the
time such individual signed the return, of any item giving rise
to a deficiency (or portion thereof) which is not allocable to
such individual”. Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C). The Court and the
regulations interpret this statutory language as requiring that
the requesting spouse not have “actual knowledge of the factual
circumstances which made the item unallowable as a deduction.”
King v. Commissioner, supra at 204; sec. 1.6015-3(c)(2)(i)(B)(1),
Income Tax Regs. The Court has further defined actual knowledge
as “an actual and clear awareness (as opposed to reason to know)
of the existence of an item which gives rise to the deficiency
(or portion thereof).” Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183,
195 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002).
D. Disallowed 2004 DJ Business Expense Deductions
We begin by noting that the CCISCO administrative review
recommended relief under section 6015(c) from intervenor’s one-
half share of the 2004 disallowed DJ business expenses and
respondent’s pretrial memorandum concurred with that
recommendation.
The decisive factor here is that intervenor filed the 2004
Federal income tax return without petitioner’s review or
signature. Despite intervenor’s nearly 2 years of opposition,
documentation, and testimony regarding petitioner’s claim for
relief under section 6015, she never indicated that she discussed
- 23 -
with petitioner the final “guesstimates” for the 2004 DJ business
expenses deductions or the 2004 refund request before she filed
their 2004 joint Federal income tax return. Therefore, we find
that petitioner did not have an actual and clear awareness of the
overstated DJ business expense deductions for 2004. Accordingly,
we agree with respondent that petitioner is entitled to relief
from joint and several liability under section 6015(c) from the
portion of the deficiency related to intervenor’s half of the
2004 disallowed DJ business expense deductions and from the
associated computational adjustments to EIC and ACTC.
E. Disallowed 2005 DJ Business Expense Deductions
CCISCO and respondent likewise concluded petitioner is
entitled to relief under section 6015(c) from intervenor’s one-
half share of the disallowed DJ business expense deductions for
2005.
The IRS returned the unprocessed 2005 Federal income tax
return to the couple’s El Paso address, requesting petitioner’s
signature. Intervenor gave the unprocessed 2005 Federal income
tax return to petitioner to sign, and he had plenty of time to
review the return before he signed it.
Petitioner signed the 2005 Form 1040 on page 2, in the
signature block “Under penalties of perjury”, only a short
distance from the line that showed a large refund of $5,846,
slightly more than 15 times his own personal withholding credit
- 24 -
for 2005 of $379.56. Further, the 2005 Form 1040 on page 1
reported only two other items of income: Intervenor’s Army
income of $37,035 and petitioner’s Navy pension $15,000.
Sandwiched between these two figures, in the middle of the
numbers column, was the reported loss of $24,910 from the DJ
business, surrounded by handwritten brackets clearing indicating
a negative number. Similarly, the Schedule C, which reported the
details of the DJ business loss, immediately followed the page
where petitioner signed the return. Consequently, petitioner’s
claim that he did not have actual knowledge of the factual
circumstances giving rise to the 2005 business loss is untenable,
especially since he had previously told intervenor not to report
the DJ activity.
Moreover, petitioner was also keenly aware of the pending
2005 refund. The couple had already set up a joint bank account
to receive the refund, they had already deposited the 2004 refund
check, and they had each drawn separately from the 2004 refund
proceeds before petitioner had signed the 2005 return.
For all of these reasons, we find that at the time
petitioner signed the 2005 return, he had an actual and clear
awareness of the large loss from the DJ business that gave rise
to almost all of the understatement for 2005. Accordingly, we
hold that petitioner is not entitled to any relief from joint and
- 25 -
several liability under section 6015(c) from the 2005 disallowed
business expense deductions.
V. Section 6015(f) Equitable Relief
In overview, because petitioner is not entitled to full
relief under section 6015(b) or (c), he may be eligible for
relief under section 6015(f). In broadest terms, section 6015(f)
provides equitable relief if, after taking into account all the
facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the
requesting spouse liable for the unpaid tax or any portion
thereof. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 292. We begin by
noting that the IRS examiner, the notice of deficiency, and
respondent in his pretrial memorandum determined that petitioner
is not entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f).
A. Analysis of Section 6015(f)
The Commissioner has prescribed guidelines in Rev. Proc.
2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, for determining equitable relief.
Except for certain exceptions inapplicable here, Rev. Proc. 2003-
61, sec. 4.01(7), 2003-2 C.B. at 297, limits equitable relief to
only those items which are attributable to the nonrequesting
spouse. Therefore, petitioner is not eligible for equitable
relief from his own share of the omitted interest income or from
his share of the disallowed DJ business expense deductions.
Consequently, because we allowed partial relief for petitioner
under section 6015(c), we review section 6015(f) solely with
- 26 -
respect to whether petitioner is entitled to equitable relief
from intervenor’s share of the disallowed 2005 DJ business
expense deductions.
The Commissioner’s guidelines set forth three tiers of
requirements. Summarizing the first two tiers, we note that
where, as here, the requesting spouse has satisfied the first set
of requirements found in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01, 2003-2
C.B. at 297-298, but fails to meet the conditions set forth in
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, 2003-2 C.B. at 298 (here,
petitioner failed to establish economic hardship as discussed in
more detail below), the requesting spouse may nevertheless obtain
relief under a nonexclusive list of factors that Rev. Proc. 2003-
61, sec. 4.03, 2003-2 C.B. at 298-299, provides. No single
factor is determinative, and the Court will consider all relevant
factors whether or not enumerated in that section. We now apply
the equity factors to the facts in this case.
1. Marital Status
The marital status factor is satisfied because petitioner
and intervenor were divorced before petitioner filed his petition
requesting relief.
2. Economic Hardship
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03(2)(a)(ii), states that the
definition of economic hardship relies on rules that the
Secretary set forth in section 301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin.
- 27 -
Regs. The regulation defines economic hardship as the condition
where a taxpayer is “unable to pay his or her reasonable basic
living expenses.” Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. In determining a reasonable amount of basic living
expense, the Commissioner considers information such as: (1) The
taxpayer’s age, employment status, history, and ability to earn;
(2) the amount reasonably necessary for living expenses such as
food, clothing, housing, medical expenses, insurances, current
tax payments, and child support; (3) the cost of living in the
geographic area in which the taxpayer resides; and (4) any
extraordinary circumstances such as a medical catastrophe. Sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
On the Form 12510 which petitioner submitted as part of his
administrative application for innocent spouse relief, petitioner
reported that his monthly income of $1,200 exceeded his monthly
expenses of $1,068. Further, petitioner did not claim that he
will be unable to pay his reasonable basic living expenses if
relief is not granted. Accordingly, petitioner has not
established financial hardship. This factor weighs against
relief.
3. Knowledge or Reason To Know
We have already concluded that petitioner failed to
establish that when he signed the 2005 Federal income tax return,
he did not know or have reason to know of the disallowed 2005 DJ
- 28 -
business expense deductions for 2005. This factor weighs against
relief.
4. Nonrequesting Spouse’s Legal Obligation
The legal obligation factor is pertinent only when the
nonrequesting spouse has a legal duty to pay the outstanding
income tax liability pursuant to a divorce decree or agreement.
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03(2)(a)(iv). This factor is
inapplicable here because the final divorce decree did not assign
responsibility for paying the outstanding taxes.
5. Significant Benefit
This factor concerns whether the requesting spouse received
significant benefit beyond normal support as a result of the
unpaid tax liability or refund. Id. sec. 4.03(2)(a)(v), 2003-2
C.B. at 299. Petitioner received nearly $2,000 from the refunds,
though he reimbursed intervenor for $1,000. This factor is
neutral or weighs against relief.
6. Compliance With Federal Tax Laws
Another factor is whether the requesting spouse made a good-
faith effort to comply with the Federal income tax laws in the
succeeding years. Id. sec. 4.03(2)(a)(vi), 2003-2 C.B. at 299.
The record is devoid of information in this regard.
- 29 -
7. Other Factors
With respect to the other factors that Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
sec. 4.03, provides, abuse and poor mental or physical health of
the requesting spouse, neither of those factors is present here.
B. Conclusion With Respect to Section 6015(f)
Weighing the above factors, we sustain respondent’s
determination that equity does not call for relief for
petitioner. Other than being divorced, no factor weighs in favor
of relief, and all the other factors are inapplicable, neutral,
or weigh against relief. Therefore, we hold that petitioner is
not entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f) for any
portion of the disallowed 2005 DJ business expense deductions and
the related computational adjustments to EIC and ACTC.
Conclusion
The Court has considered all of the arguments that
petitioner and intervenor have made, and, to the extent not
mentioned, the Court concludes that the arguments are moot,
irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.