TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Tamara Ketchell, a.k.a. Tamara D. Misiuda
Docket Number: 21439-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/02/2009
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 TAMARA KETCHELL , a .k .a . TAMARA D . ) MISIUDA, Petitioner, v . Docket No . 21439-08 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Seattle,, Washington, on September 17, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date : Washington, D .C . October 2, 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroup a 2 Docket No . 21439-08 September 17, 2 0 9 3 Tamara Ketchell, a .k .a . Tamara Misiuda v . Commissioner 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fac t 7 and opinion . These oral findings of fact and opinion 1 8 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 9 case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 12 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules o f 13 Practice and Procedure . All section references are to 14 the Internal Revenue Code for 1996, 1997, 1998, an d 15 1999, which years shall be collectively referred to as 16 the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the 17 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Tamara Ketchell appeared pro se, and Bob 19 Boeshaar appeared on behalf of respondent . 20 FINDINGS OF FACT 21 Certain facts have been stipulated . The 22 stipulation of facts the parties filed, wit h 23 accompanying exhibits, is incorporated by this 24 reference . The facts are so found . Petitioner 25 resided in Washington at the time she filed the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 petition in this case . 2 Petitioner and her ex-husband were married 3 for 30 years and had two children, now adults . They 4 divorced in 2007 after having separated only months 5 earlier . Petitioner's ex-husband was require d 6 pursuant to the divorce decree to pay "100 percent o f 7 any and all liability, tax liability, and/or business debt regarding JRM Financial Services ." During eac h 9 of the years at issue, petitioner was employed as an 10 administrative assistant at a school and her ex- 11 husband was self-employed as a financial consultant . 12 Petitioner's wages had income taxes withheld from them 13 while her ex-husband's earnings had no withholdings . 14 Petitioner also apparently conducted a Tupperwar e 15 Schedule C business and there does not appear to be 16 any estimated tax payments attributable to he r 17 earnings from this business . 18 Petitioner and her ex-husband lived in the 19 same house during all of the years at issue . At tax 20 time, she had all her W-2 information together and her 21 husband had to compile income and expense records from 22 his various self-employed businesses . Petitione r 23 would help him input data into TurboTax . 24 They filed joint returns for each of th e 25 years at issue each reflecting a balance due yet they Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 failed to remit payment with the returns . More 2 importantly, they did not file the returns timely . In 3 fact, they did not file the joint returns until 2004, 4 which is almost five years past due in the case of the 5 first year at issue . They both worked on submittin g 6 the four years of unfiled returns in January 2004 . 7 Petitioner failed to explain how she remembered to sign an extension to file a return bu t 9 failed to sign the returns until five years after they 10 were due to be filed . This would mean that petitioner 11 believed that her ex-husband filed the returns without 12 her signature . She also trusted her ex-husband t o 13 file the returns even though they had a history of tax 14 problems dating back to the 1980's . 15 They apparently did not discuss tax issues . 16 Petitioner said that she discovered that her ex- 17 husband had not made estimated payments . It i s 18 unclear whether this was solely during the years at 19 issue when she had multiple operations or some othe 20 time during their 30-year marriage . 21 Petitioner admits that she knew that there 22 was an underpayment for each of the years at issue . 23 She said that her ex-husband was going to obtain a 24 loan to pay the tax liabilities at issue . 25 Petitioner filed two Forms 8857, Request for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Innocent Spouse Relief, for the years at issue . The 2 first form related to 1996, 1997, and 1998 while the 3 second form related to 1999 and 2002 . The partie s 4 agree that the Court does not have jurisdiction as to 5 the tax year 2002 because petitioner did not file the 6 petition timely . The Court will therefore grant 7 respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of 8 jurisdiction as to 2002 . 9 Respondent determined that petitioner is not 10 eligible for relief . Respondent determine d 11 preliminarily and also after petitioner submitted two 12 statements of disagreement . Respondent determined i n 13 the Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request 14 for Relief from Joint and Several Liability Under 15 Section 6015 dated July 17, 2008 (the Determination 16 Notice) that petitioner did not qualify for relief 17 under section 6015 . Petitioner timely filed a 18 petition asserting that respondent abused his 19 discretion in denying her relief from joint and 20 several liability . 21 OPINION 22 The issue we are asked to decide is whethe r 23 petitioner is entitled to relief under subsection (f 24 of section 6015 . The Court notes that petitioner is 25 not entitled to relief under subsection (b) or (c) of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 6015 because neither subsection applies to 2 underpayments as we have here . 3 We begin with the general principles o f 4 joint returns . Married taxpayers may elect to file a 5 joint Federal income tax return with his or he r 6 spouse . Sec . 6013(a) . Each spouse filing the return 7 is jointly and severally liable for the entire ta x 8 shown on the return or otherwise determined to be due . 9 Sec . 6013(d)(3) ; 10 Cheshire v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 183, 188 (2000), 11 affd . 282 F .3d 326 (5th Cir . 2002) . A taxpayer may 12 seek relief, however, from joint liability unde r 13 section 6015 . Section 6015 provides for relief from 14 the joint and several liability that arises from a 15 joint return in certain situations and subject to a 16 variety of conditions . Relief under subsection (f) 17 applies if, taking into account all of the facts and 18 circumstances, it would be inequitable to find the 19 requesting spouse liable . 20 Respondent agrees that petitioner satisfies 21 the "Tier I" factors set forth in Rev . Proc . 2003-61, 22 2003-2 C .B . 296 . Respondent argues, however, tha t 23 petitioner does not satisfy two of the thre e 24 additional requirements in section 4 .02(1) of the Rel . 25 Proc . nor would it be inequitable to hold petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 8 1 liable for the underpayments . We agree . 2 This case can be summarized by saying that 3 it is a case of inconsistencies . For example , 4 petitioner urges the Court to find that her ex-husband 5 withheld all information from her about the unpai d 6 taxes for the years at issue . The record does not 7 support petitioner's wishes, however, as explaine d 8 more full below . Petitioner further wants the Court 9 to find that she trusted her ex-husband 10 unconditionally with the unpaid tax liabilities . 11 Again, the record does not support this position . To 12 do so would require the Court to find that petitioner 13 and her ex-husband lived together for 30 year s 14 including during all the years at issue and they never 15 discussed taxes or finances . The record reflects that 16 they had tax issues from the 1980's . Petitioner also 17 testified that she was under a lot of stress because 18 of the frequent tax problems . The Court has t o 19 believe that finances and taxes were discussed and 20 they were discussed frequently . In addition, the 21 Court finds it incredible that one spouse could be a 22 financial planner and the couple never discusse d 23 finances or taxes? Incredible ! 24 In addition, petitioner's testimony that she 25 expected her ex-husband to obtain a loan is contrary Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 .11 9 1 to her testimony that she was the only one who could 2 get credit . It is also troubling because the mos t 3 likely source of loan proceeds would be from famil y 4 members . Petitioner knew that they had received loans 5 from her parents to pay the taxes for other years not 6 at issue . From whom was he to get a loan? The record 7 reflects that her parents had lent money to them frequently in the past . Petitioner's own testimony 9 that she contacted respondent to work out a payment 10 plan or make an offer in compromise is inconsistent 11 with her now claiming that her ex-husband kept all 12 information about the underpayments from her . 13 It is also hard to believe that petitioner 14 could be married to someone for 30 years who failed to 15 share or discuss financial information from hi s 16 various businesses, especially given that he was a 17 financial planner . Likewise, it is also hard t o 18 believe that her ex-husband could be in the financial 19 consulting business and have tax issues . As I stated 20 earlier, this is a case of inconsistencies . 21 The Court was also intrigued by testimony of 22 petitioner's current husband . He relied upon he r 23 knowing what the unpaid balance of his house boat was . 24 Petitioner is not an individual the Court finds woul d 25 sit back and let someone else take control of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 1 0 finances . We agree with respondent that nothing in t he record or from trial convinces us that petitioner i s entitled to relief under section 6015(f) for th e underpayments for each of the years at issue . I n addition, holding her liable for the underpayments i s not inequitable considering all the facts an d circumstances of this case . Petitioner is therefor e liable for the unpaid amounts for each of the years at issue . We shall issue an order and decision holding to such effect . We shall also grant respondent' s motion to dismiss tax year 2002 for lack o f jurisdiction . This concludes the court's oral findings o f fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 9 :27 a .m ., the above-entitl ed case was adjourned . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888