The Tax Court's Enhanced Power to Help Innocent Spouses

Law changes have expanded a spouse's ability to claim innocence. Signing a joint return can be a bit like walking into a minefield. For example, a taxpayer, James, left preparation of their joint 2000 federal income tax return to his wife, Joanne. Unknown to him, Joanne had won $200,000 in a state lottery in May 2000, put the money in a Swiss bank account and failed to report it on their return. James, who was never told about the lottery winnings, signed the return. Under federal tax law, James and Joanne are jointly and severally liable for the tax on the $200,000 of unreported income. (Assuming they are in the 36% federal tax bracket, they owe $72,000 in additional tax alone.) When the IRS inquires about the omission, and seeks full payment of the tax, it can proceed against either Joanne, or James, or both, even if, at that time, they are separated or divorced. James may claim he was an spouse--that when he signed the return he had no knowledge of the omitted income. If the IRS denies his claim for innocent relief, James can take his plea to the Tax Court. CPAs need to be familiar with the scope of the innocent claim to advise clients properly. In the past, the Tax Court had limited ability to review an IRS denial of innocent relief. That changed in 1998. In a number of decisions last year, the Tax Court explained its expanded ability to review requests for innocent under IRC section 6015, which was enacted by section 3201 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and amended by section 4002(c) of the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998. (For a detailed discussion of the innocent rules, see Bryant and Fleischman, How Innocent Spouses Spell Relief, JofA, Mar.00, page 63.) NEW LAW Before the 1998 IRS restructuring act, the Tax Court generally had jurisdiction to hear innocent claims only in cases in which there was a tax deficiency, not a refund. The act's provisions empowered the court to review IRS denials of (or failures to rule on) innocent in both deficiency and refund cases, generally effective for any for tax arising after (or unpaid on) July 22, 1998, if a petition seeking such is timely filed with the court in accordance with IRC section 6015(e). As long as such remains unpaid after July 22, 1998, the Tax Court's expanded jurisdiction applies, even if the innocent claim arose prior to that date. Generally, an eligible taxpayer can make one of two elections under IRC section 6015: n An spouse election, if the taxpayer had filed jointly and is still married to that spouse, under section 6015(b). n A separate liability election, if the taxpayer had filed jointly and, at the time of the election, is no longer married to, is regally separated from or has lived apart from that for the past 12 months, under section 6015(c). If a taxpayer does not qualify for either of the above, the IRS may nevertheless grant equitable relief under section 6015(f) if undue hardship would otherwise result (and if other requirements are met). In any case, the remedy is apportioned for the part of the tax understatement about which the taxpayer has no knowledge or reason to know. (James might argue that he is entitled to from the entire tax understatement, as he had no knowledge or reason to know of the $200,000 of omitted income.) Section 6015(e)(1)(A) provides that, if the taxpayer timely files a petition, the Tax Court can review the IRS's denial of in section 6015(b) and (c) election cases. TAX COURT'S RIGHT TO REVIEW IRS DENIAL OF RELIEF In Michael B. Butler v. Commissioner (114 TC 276 (2000)), the taxpayer sought section 6015(b) relief. The IRS denied it and section 6015(f) relief. The issue was whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction to review the IRS's denial of section 6015(f) relief. …