2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 163">*163 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This is a case arising under
Respondent determined petitioner was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for a $ 6,450 underpayment of tax for tax year 2000 pursuant to
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 163">*164 with the Court, petitioner resided in Jacksonville, Florida.
Background
Petitioner was married to Shannon R. Flowers (Mr. Flowers), and one child was born during the marriage. They were legally married during 2000, but divorced in 2002.
Petitioner is a college graduate with a bachelor of science degree in health information management. During 2003, she was enrolled in a master of business administration program at Webster University. During 2000, petitioner was employed as a director with Shands Jacksonville.
Mr. Flowers was a high school graduate in 2000 with some college coursework. He worked in automotive sales.
Respondent assessed a $ 6,450 deficiency due to a mathematical or clerical error adjustment to the 2000 return. See sec. 6213(b)(1). Respondent later reduced the amount of tax due to $ 4,199 because of the application of $ 2,251 of withholding credits from Mr. Flowers, which credits were not reported on the 2000 return or credited when the math error adjustment was made.
The tax liability for 2000 arose from a miscalculated dependent care credit. Petitioner and Mr. Flowers timely filed a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, reflecting wages of $ 80,9332005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 163">*165 and withholding credits of $ 5,239. Attached to the return was Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses, on which petitioner reported that she had paid child care expenses of $ 1,080 and claimed a credit of $ 7,503. It appears that instead of multiplying the child care expenses by 20 percent, petitioner calculated the credit by multiplying Mr. Flowers's earned income of $ 37,515 by 20 percent.
Petitioner prepared the 2000 joint tax return herself and reviewed it before signing it. The return reflected an overpayment of $ 693.
During their marriage, petitioner and Mr. Flowers maintained a joint checking account into which they both made deposits. Petitioner opened the household mail and reviewed the bank statements. She acknowledged that she was generally aware of Mr. Flowers's finances as well as her own. During her review of their bank statements, petitioner discovered that Mr. Flowers had hidden some withdrawals from her during the year.
Respondent received from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Petitioner also submitted to respondent a completed Form 12510, Questionnaire for Requesting Spouse, in which she provided a list of her monthly expenses. 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 163">*166 Those expenses total $ 4,185 and are as follows:
Rent | $ 875 |
Food | 360 |
Utilities | 200 |
Telephone | 100 |
Auto Payments | 585 |
Auto insurance | 71 |
Auto fuel & repairs | 200 |
Medical | 100 |
Clothing | 100 |
Credit card | 300 |
Braces & eyeglasses | 188 |
Tutoring | 956 |
Gas | 150 |
Respondent determined petitioner was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the understatement for tax year 2000 pursuant to
Discussion
Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return.
Except as otherwise provided in
A taxpayer who satisfies all of the five requirements set forth in
Further, the knowledge a taxpayer possesses about the items underlying the liability could preclude relief under either or both
In the context of a disallowed deduction, "actual knowledge" is present if the taxpayer had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances which made the item unallowable as a deduction.
Petitioner admitted that she prepared the tax return and calculated the dependent care credit. The dependent care credit petitioner claimed on the return was almost seven times greater than the amount she actually paid for child care. At trial, petitioner conceded that her calculation was incorrect and that the amount of the deduction she claimed did "not sound normal". Additionally, petitioner admitted that she reviewed the return before signing it.
The Court finds that petitioner had actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the deficiency. The Court concludes that petitioner is not entitled to relief under
* * * * (f) Equitable Relief.--Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, if-- (1) taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either); and (2) relief is not available to such individual under subsection (b) or (c), the Secretary may relieve such individual of such liability.
Because relief from the 2000 understatement is not available to petitioner under
The other prerequisite is that it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for the unpaid tax, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. As contemplated by
A requesting spouse satisfying all the applicable threshold conditions may be relieved of all or part of the liability under
The knowledge or reason to know factor, the economic hardship factor, and the legal obligation to pay factor in
The sole factor in favor of petitioner here is the factor of marital status. Petitioner and her former husband were divorced in 2002. The remaining factors that are applicable tend to weigh against petitioner. Petitioner caused the mathematical error on the return, and she had knowledge of the actual amounts she paid for child care. Petitioner also derived a significant benefit from her miscalculation in that the return reflected an overpayment of $ 693 instead of an understatement of $ 6,450. Finally, petitioner has failed to show that she2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 163">*174 would experience economic hardship if relief from the liability were not granted.
The Court finds, considering all the facts and circumstances, that respondent did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner equitable relief from joint and severable liability under
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Respondent's determination is subject to