TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Geimy M. Lopez
Docket Number: 8111-18
Judge: Kerrigan
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/25/2019
Pages: 11

BD UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GEIMY M. LOPEZ, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. ) ) ) ) ) 8111-18. ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of trial in the above case before Judge Kathleen Kerrigan in San Francisco, California, on June 18, 2019, containing her Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Kathleen Kerrigan Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 25, 2019 SERVED Jul 25 2019 RECEIVED 6/26/19 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT PA In the Matter of: GEIMY M. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. . ) ) ) ) Docket No. 8111-18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pages: 1 through 9 Place: San Francisco, California Date: June 18, 2019 3)MsŠ250|9perationseescribersnetlwww.esetibersatét IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 1 In the Matter of: ) GEIMY M. LOPEZ, ) Docket No. 8111-18 Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) Burton Federal Bldg. 450 Golden Gate Avenue Room 2-1408, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94102 & U.S. Cthse. June 18, 2019 The above-entitled matter came on for bench opinion, . · pursuant to notice at 2:35 p.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE KATHLEEN KERRIGAN Judge APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: No Appearance For the Respondent: No Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shun Ú)40s-2250 perattonspetribeänet www.estn13ersnet P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (2:35 p.m.) TFIE CLERK: Docket number 8111-18, Geimy M. Lopez. (Whereupon, a bench opinion was rendered.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Kathleen Kerrigan June 18, 2019 Geimy M. Lopez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 8111-18 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render in this case the following as its oral findings of fact and opinion, which shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 10 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 11 Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in 13 effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are 14 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 15 The issue for our consideration is whether 16 petitioner is entitled to innocent spouse relief pursuant 17 18 to section 6015(f) for 2015. Trial of this case was conducted on June 17, 2019, in San Francisco, California. 19 Petitioner represented herself. Christiane C. Sanicola 20 21 22 23 24 25 represented respondent. The parties' stipulation of facts and attached exhibits were admitted into evidence. We find the following facts: FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner resided in California when she timely filed her petition. Petitioner married her former husband 7 406-286 operati ns@escÑbers.bet wvtw.escribendet on March 21, 2012. On April 12, 2016, petitioner timely 4 filed a 2015 individual income tax return claiming married filing separately status. On this return, petitioner reported tax due of $2,603. Petitioner claimed withholding of $3,340 and received a refund of $737. On September 19, 2016, respondent received an amended individual amended income tax return for 2015 for petitioner and her husband claiming married filing joint status. The amended return reported a balance due of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $1,702. The amount of petitioner's federal income tax 11 withholding was reported on the 2015 joint return. The 12 13 $737 refund was reported as jointly owned. Petitioner signed the 2015 joint return on September 13, 2016. As of 14 May 13, 2019, there is balance of $320 due for petitioner 15 16 17 and her former husband's joint tax liability for 2015. Petitioner and her former husband legally separated on December 22, 2016, and were divorced on 18 December 1, 2017. On her 2016 individual income tax 19 20 21 return, petitioner reported wage income of $34,712, and pension and annuity income of $14,149. On her 2017 individual income tax return, petitioner reported income 22 of $59,466. Petitioner did not timely pay her tax 23 24 liabilities for tax years 2016 and 2017. On June 13, 2017, respondent received from 25 petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse (9Ü) 2250(operationséescribers.net jwwwàscribers iet Relief, for 2015. On January 26, 2018, respondent made a 5 final determination and denied petitioner's innocent SPouse relief pursuant to 6015(f) for 2015. OPINION Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making this election, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for that taxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Section 6015(f) (1) permits relief from joint and several liability if it would be inequitable to hold the requesting spouse liable for any unpaid tax or any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 deficiency. Under section 6015(f) the Secretary may grant 14 equitable relief to a requesting spouse on the basis of 15 the facts and circumstances. Petitioner bears the burden 16 of proving that she is entitled to equitable relief under 17 18 19 20 21 section 6015(f). See Rule 142(a); Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009). This Court has jurisdiction to review respondent's denial of petitioner's request for equitable relief under section 6015(f). See sec. 6015(e)(1). We 22 apply a de novo standard of review as well as a de novo 23 24 25 scope of review. See Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 210. The Commissioner issued Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, modifying and superseding Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, to provide guidance for determining whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief from joint and 6 several liability. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, supra, provides a three-step analysis to follow in evaluating a request for relief. The first step consists of seven threshold conditions that must be met. The seventh condition is the tax liability from which the requesting spouse seeks relief is attributable to an item of the nonrequesting spouse and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 petitioner did not demonstrate that the liability is 11 attributable to the nonrequesting spouse. Id. sec. 4.01, 12 13 14 2013-43 I.R.B. at 399-400. Since it is unclear whether petitioner met the seven threshold conditions, we will assume that they were 15 met. However, even with the threshold conditions met, 16 petitioner is not eligible for relief pursuant to section 17 6015(f). 18 19 20 21 The second step of the analysis provides three conditions that, if met, will qualify a requesting spouse for a streamlined determination of relief under section 6015(f). Id. sec. 4.02, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 400. 22 Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for a 23 24 25 streamlined determination. The third step is available if the requesting spouse satisfies the threshold conditions but fails to ·(9Ž3j4064 0 Aperati ns@escHbers.net sw.esciberspet . 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 satisfy the conditions of streamlined relief. A requesting spouse may still be eligible for equitable relief under section 6015(f) if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the requesting spouse liable for the underpayment. Id. sec. 4.03. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.03(2) lists the following nonexclusive factors that the Commissioner takes into account when determining whether to grant equitable relief: (1) marital status; (2) economic hardship; (3) in the case of a deficiency, knowledge or reason to know of the item giving rise to the deficiency; (4) legal 12 obligation; (5) significant benefit; (6) compliance with 13 tax laws; and (7) mental or physical health. No single 14 factor is determinative; the IRS considers all factors and 15 weighs them appropriately. Id. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Petitioner testified that she should not have signed two different returns for 2015. She did not show economic hardship. For 2016 and 2017, she was late in paying her tax liabilities. Petitioner did not put forth enough evidence to show that she is entitled to equitable relief, and therefore she did not meet her burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 210. We conclude that it would not be inequitable to deny 25 petitioner relief under section 6015(f). cribers . 73)4064M0 perati nspescribetsäet wéw4scribérs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 We sustain the determination by respondent, and a decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) . )40 ó opanti nÒeser e e vrerv/45.dibèrsnet- CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER 9 CASE NAME: Geimy M. Lopez v. Commissioner DOCKET NO.: 8111-18 We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 9 inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Deborah Gonzalez on June 18, 2019 before the United States Tax Court at its session in San Francisco, CA, in accordance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 with the applicable provisions of the current verbatim 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reporting contract of the Court and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording. Meribeth Ashley, CET-507 . Transcriber Stacey Post Proofreader 6/24/19 Date 6/25/19 Date (913)406-2250)operati ns@escribersñet|wwweiciibers.net