T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-31

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JOE STEWART, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 21262-07S. Filed March 16, 2010.

Joe Stewart, pro se.

G. Chad Barton, for respondent.

THORNTON, 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 for any other

case. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code.
- 2 -

The issue for decision is whether for 2004 petitioner is

entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section

6015. 

Background

The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate

by this reference. When he petitioned the Court, petitioner

resided in Arkansas. 

During 2004 petitioner resided with his then wife, Edith

Stewart (Ms. Stewart). That summer, after discussing the matter

with petitioner, Ms. Stewart went to work full time for a medical

clinic in a town about 2 hours from their home. Her weekly

routine was to leave home on Sunday evening or Monday morning,

stay in the town where she worked during the week, and return

home on Friday afternoon. In December 2004 she stopped working

for the clinic.

 The clinic paid Ms. Stewart $20 per hour plus expenses. 

During 2004 her compensation totaled $19,500. 

On their 2004 joint Federal income tax return petitioner and

Ms. Stewart failed to report this $19,500 of compensation. By

notice of deficiency respondent determined that this omission

gave rise to a $5,762 deficiency and a $1,152 accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662. No Tax Court petition was filed in

response to the notice of deficiency.
- 3 -

After respondent had assessed these liabilities, petitioner

submitted to respondent Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse

Relief. In a cover letter, petitioner’s representative asserted

that petitioner was unaware of the tax understatement when he

signed the 2004 joint return and that he received no direct

benefit from the unreported income. 

Respondent’s agents requested information from petitioner

with respect to his request for relief, but petitioner failed to

respond. Respondent’s agents also requested information from Ms.

Stewart, who responded in a questionnaire, under penalties of

perjury, that petitioner was aware of the income she had earned

at the medical clinic in 2004 and that he had used the unreported

income to pay their joint living expenses and to purchase tools

for personal use. She indicated on the questionnaire that

neither she nor petitioner had reviewed their 2004 joint return

before signing it. 

In his final determination respondent denied petitioner’s

request for innocent spouse relief on the ground that “You did

not respond to our request for additional information.” 

Discussion

Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint

Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the

election, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the

entire tax due on their aggregate income. Sec. 6013(d)(3). An
- 4 -

individual may seek relief from joint and several liability under

section 6015, which offers three avenues of possible relief under 

subsections (b), (c), and (f). In general, section 6015(b)

provides full or apportioned relief from joint and several

liability; section 6015(c) provides proportionate tax relief to

divorced or separated taxpayers; and in certain circumstances

section 6015(f) provides equitable relief if relief is not

available under section 6015(b) or (c). If the Commissioner

denies a taxpayer’s request for relief under section 6015, the

taxpayer may petition this Court to review the determination. 

Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A). 

In support of his requested relief petitioner asserts that

Ms. Stewart took care of all family finances, that he had no

control over her actions, and that he was unaware of any “wrong

doing”. Petitioner has stipulated, however, that he knew that

Ms. Stewart worked full time at the clinic, earning $20 an hour. 

We conclude that when he signed the 2004 joint return, petitioner

had actual knowledge of the income that gave rise to the

deficiency. Consequently, he is not entitled to relief under

section 6015(b) or (c). See sec. 6015(b)(1)(C), (c)(3)(C). 

A taxpayer who does not qualify for relief under section

6015(b) or (c) can be relieved from joint and several liability

pursuant to section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts

and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the taxpayer
- 5 -

liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency. In determining the

appropriate relief available under section 6015(f), we apply a de

novo scope and standard of review. See Porter v. Commissioner,

132 T.C. (2009). 

Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, prescribes guidelines

for determining whether an individual qualifies for relief under

section 6015(f). Under these guidelines, petitioner’s knowledge

of the income giving rise to the deficiency weighs strongly

against granting relief. See Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.

4.03(2)(a)(iii)(B), 2003-2 C.B. at 298. The record fails to

establish counterbalancing factors that are “particularly

compelling.” Id. In fact, petitioner has offered little more

information in this proceeding to support his request for relief

than he offered in the administrative proceeding, in which he

failed to respond to requests for additional information. It is

unclear from the record whether petitioner might have received

significant benefit from the unreported income beyond normal

support. The record does not suggest, however, that petitioner

was subject to abuse, that he will suffer economic hardship if

relief is denied, or that Ms. Stewart has a legal obligation to

pay the outstanding income tax liability pursuant to a divorce

decree or agreement. See Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.

4.03(2)(a)(ii), (iv), (v), (b)(i), 2003-2 C.B. at 298-299. In

the final analysis, petitioner’s plea for relief appears to rest
- 6 -

largely on an assertion that he relied upon his ex-wife to make

sure that her income was properly reported on their joint return. 

Such an assertion, even if true, is inadequate to establish his

entitlement to relief from joint and several liability,

particularly in the light of his knowledge of the income giving

rise to the deficiency. 

We sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner is not

entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

for respondent.