Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Equity and Relief from Joint Return Liabilities
In the first part of this article, I discussed the availability of relief for a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return that results from his or her spouse's errors or omissions, focusing on the equitable catch-all provided in IRC ' 6015(f). In December 2006, Congress amended the statute explicitly to provide for Tax Court review of IRS determinations not to grant relief under ' 6015(f). Now, I consider how the Tax Court evaluates these claims in relation to the position of the IRS.
Under subsection (f), the Commissioner is authorized to relieve a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return if he or she does not meet the requirements for relief under subsections (b) or (c) and 'taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold [the taxpayer] liable ' ' The initial determination is committed to the discretion of the Commissioner. In Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, superseding Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 200-1 C.B. 447, the IRS has set out the 'factors' it applies in deciding whether to authorize relief under ' 6015(f). This Revenue Procedure provides the framework for analyzing requests for relief. Section 4.01 identifies seven factors that must be established before the taxpayer is eligible for relief. The important one for this discussion is the requirement that the 'relief is attributable to an item of the [taxpayer's spouse].' This includes a requirement that, in cases involving the failure to pay an assessed tax, the failure to pay must be from assets of the taxpayer's spouse (called the 'nonrequesting spouse'), unless there is misappropriation by the spouse or other, similar misconduct.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.