TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Laura A. Brady
Docket Number: 22969-08S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 08/02/2010
Pages: 6

CLC T .C . Summary Opinion 2010-10 7 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T LAURA A . BRADY, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 22969-08S . Filed August 2, 2010 . Laura A . Brady, pro se . John K .. Parchman , for respondent . CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge : This section 6015(e)' case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 . Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewabl e 'Unless otherwise indicated, section . references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period . SERVED Aug 02 2010 by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case . In a final notice of determination dated June 26, 2008, respondent denied petitioner's claim for section 6015(f) relief with respect to the joint and several liability arising from a 2003 Federal income tax return considered by respondent to have been jointly filed by petitioner and Gregory Harris (Mr . Harris) . See sec . 6064 .2 Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Arkansas . .Petitioner and Mr . Harris first met sometime towards the end of 2002 . They were married on March 31, 2003 . Afterwards petitioner and one of her children from a previous marriage moved in with Mr .,Harris . This was petitioner's third marriage . Apparently, the third time is not always the charm . Petitioner and Mr . Harris separated in early 2004 and were divorced on July 26 of that year . All told, they lived together for less than 1 year . Petitioner was not employed during 2003 and otherwise had no obligation to file a Federal income tax return for that year . A t 2Sec . 6064 provides "The fact that an individual' s name is signed to a return * * * shall be prima facie evidence for all purposes that the return * * * was actually signed by him ." - 3 - some point before October 2004 and in response to a .request by Mr . Harris, she provided him with her Social Security number and the Social Security number of her child that lived with them . On October 18, 2004, respondent received and caused to be filed a 2003 joint Federal income tax return Mr . Harris prepared . That return was signed by Mr . Harris . Although the return also shows a signature purporting to be petitioner's, she did not sign the return or authorize anyone else to do so on her behalf . Apparently, a large portion of the tax reported on that return was not paid with the return and has not been paid since . Petitioner first became aware of the liability arising from the 2003 return when . she was notified by respondent that a $28 refund claimed on her 2004iFederal income tax return was being applied to her outstanding ;2003 tax liability . Discussion Section 6015 relief from joint and several liability is not available to a taxpayer for any given year if the taxpayer did not file a joint Federal income tax return with the taxpayer's spouse for that year . See Raymond v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 191, 194-197 (2002) . According to petitioner, the 2003 return Mr . Harris prepared should not be treated,as her return because she neither signed it nor consented to it's being signed on her behalf . Respondent now agrees that petitioner did not sign the return . Nevertheless, - 4 - according to respondent, Mr . Harris prepared the 2003 return with the implicit consent of petitioner, and it would not be inequitable to hold her liable for the income tax liability arising from that return . See secs . 6013(a), 6015(f) . We recognize that if both spouses intend and consent to file a joint Federal income tax return for any given year, then the failure of one spouse to sign the return for that year will not necessarily preclude its treatment as a joint return . See, e .g ., Estate of Campbell v . Commissioner , 56 T .C . 1, 12 (1971) ; see also Heim v . Commissioner , 27 T .C . 2,70, 273-274 (1956), affd . 251 F .2d 44 (8th .Cir . 1958) ; Magee v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005- 263 ; sec . 1 .6013-1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs . We further recognize that the requisite "consent" may be inferred from behavior . In determining whether a nonsigning spouse consented to file a joint return for any given year, various factors are taken into account, such as : (1) Whether the returns were prepared pursuant to an established practice of preparing and filing joint returns ; (2) whether the nonsigning . spouse failed to object to the filing of a joint return ; (3) whether an affirmative act was taken indicating an intention to file other than jointly ; (4) whether one spouse entirely relied on the other spouse to file returns ; (5) whether the spouse examined returns presented for a signature ; (6) whether separate returns were filed ; . (7) whether the returns included the income - 5' - and deductions of the nonsigning spouse ; and (8) whether the nonsigning spouse was'aware of the contents of the . purported joint returns . Estate of Campbell v . Commissioner , supra at 12- 13 ; Howell v . Commissioner , 10 T .C . 859 (1948), affd . per curiam 175 F .2d 240 (6th Cir . 1949) ;. Boyle v . Commissioner ,, T .C . Memo . 1994-294 ; Evans v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1982-700 . According to respondent, because petitioner supplied Mr . Harris with her Social . Security number and the Social Security number of one of her children, she was aware of his intention to file a joint return on her behalf and consented to his doing so . The sharing of tax information between spouses, no doubt, might be an indicia of the consent of each to file a joint return with the other . Be that as it may, Mr . Harris would have needed the same information because he was otherwise entitled to additional exemption deductions .for petitioner and her child regardless of whether a joint return was filed . See sec . 151(a), (b), (c) , (e) . There is no direct evidence on the point in the record, and we have no basis for choosing one plausible explanation over the other . The marriage between petitioner and Mr . Harris lasted less than 18 months . They obviously had no occasion . to file, or history of filing, a joint Federal income tax return with each other for any year before 2003 . In fact, the 2003 return here in question was not prepared and filed until after they were 6 - divorced . Petitioner did not sign the return, she was not employed during 2003, and she had no obligation to file a Federal income tax return for that year . See sec . 6012(a) . We find that the 2003 return Mr . Harris prepared that gave rise to the 2003 income tax liability from which petitioner seeks relief is neither a joint return as contemplated by section 6013(a) nor .petitioner's return . Accordingly, because petitioner did not file a joint return with Mr . Harris for 2003, relief from her outstanding 2003 Federal income tax liability, if otherwise available, is not available in this proceeding . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered denying petitioner's request for relief under section 6015 .