Petitioners' testimony is implausible and insufficient to support findings that tax returns were filed on time or that deductible business expenses were 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*288 incurred. We reject categorically Smith's assertion that he has satisfied the conditions for shifting to respondent the burden of proof under section 7491(a), because petitioners have not introduced credible evidence, did not substantiate deductions, did not maintain required records, and did not cooperate with reasonable requests for information and documents. See sec. 7491(a) (2).

We conclude that assessment of the amounts in dispute in this case, after the decision becomes final, is not barred by limitations, and that no adjustments in the reduced amounts conceded by respondent in the settlement with Hook are justified. (Smith's liabilities are limited to the stipulated amounts).

Respondent has the burden of producing evidence that the section 6651(a) addition to tax and the section 6662 penalty are appropriate. See sec. 7491(c). Proof of the late filing of the returns, which we have accepted because of the lack of credible evidence of timely filing, satisfies respondent's burden. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438">116 T.C. 438, 116 T.C. 438">446-448 (2001). Petitioners have failed to establish or even argue that the late filing was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*289 See sec. 6651(a)(1). The additions to tax for late filing are sustained.

The deficiencies stipulated by Hook and sustained in this opinion result in substantial understatements within the meaning of section 6662(d). In any event, the omission of income and the improper deduction of Smith's expenses and certain of Hook's claimed business expenses, as is apparent from cross-examination of each of them, constitute negligence as defined in section 6662(c). See 116 T.C. 438">Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 448-449. The section 6662(a) penalties are appropriate. Petitioners' unsupported assertions that the returns were correct do not constitute reasonable cause or any other defense to the penalties. The penalty for each year will be sustained.

Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the election, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for that taxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3). A spouse (requesting spouse) may, however, seek relief from joint and several liability by following procedures established in section 6015. A requesting spouse may request relief from liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*290 may allocate liability according to provisions under section 6015(c). Sec. 6015(a). If relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c), an individual may seek equitable relief under section 6015(f). Section 6015(f) authorizes the Commissioner to grant equitable relief from joint and several liability if "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)".

Respondent argues that actual knowledge of the understatements is attributable to Smith. Although Smith did not personally sign the joint tax returns that petitioners filed, he authorized Hook to sign his name. He did not satisfy his duty of inquiry but turned a blind eye to the contents of the returns. See Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126">94 T.C. 126, 94 T.C. 126">148 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132">992 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993); Adams v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 300">60 T.C. 300, 60 T.C. 300">303 (1973). Moreover, at the time that the tax returns for the years in issue were due, Smith was well aware that the returns for 1992 through 1996 had been challenged by the Commissioner for similar reasons and that substantial deficiencies and penalties had been determined for those years. 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*291 Smith's knowledge is a disqualifying factor for relief under section 6015(b)(1)(C) or (c)(3)(C).

Although they were living separately during the years in issue, Smith has not shown grounds for allocation under section 6015(c) and (d), and the record of omitted income withdrawn from his retirement account and the erroneous deductions attributable to him negate such allocation. Nothing in this record suggests that it would be inequitable to hold him liable for the deficiencies, which is the showing required under section 6015(b)(1)(D) or (f)(1). Smith has not presented evidence of any factor favoring relief among those generally considered in determining entitlement under section 6015, and discussion of those factors is therefore not necessary. Smith is not entitled to relief under section 6015.

Much of the voluminous record in this case is based on Smith's complaints, joined by Hook, about the final decisions in the cases involving their 1992 through 1996 tax liabilities and the collection efforts that followed assessment of the liabilities for those years. Smith's attacks on the Court in relation to the prior cases will not be addressed in this opinion. His 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*292 several motions to disqualify Judges involved in this case are based on adverse rulings that are not grounds for disqualification. See United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869">624 F.2d 869, 624 F.2d 869">882 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Carroll, 567 F.2d 955">567 F.2d 955, 567 F.2d 955">958 (10th Cir. 1977); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31">559 F.2d 31, 559 F.2d 31">136, 181 U.S. App. D.C. 254">181 U.S. App. D.C. 254 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States v. Ming, 466 F.2d 1000">466 F.2d 1000, 466 F.2d 1000">1002-1004 (7th Cir. 1972).

Petitioners argue that the deficiencies in this case should be reduced by alleged overpayments resulting from excess collections of the earlier years' liabilities. They filed a motion for refund of the amounts the IRS collected from them after the petition in this case was filed. The Court ordered a response from respondent, to "include an accounting that shows whether any collection of funds from petitioners has been 'in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of' the petition in this case, over which the Court has jurisdiction under section 6213(a)." Section 6213(a) prohibits assessment of a deficiency or collection efforts during the pendency of a case in this Court and provides in relevant part that a refund may be ordered of any amount collected during the time that the prohibition is in effect 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*293 but "only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of such petition." Thus the Court has no jurisdiction here to order refunds of amounts collected with respect to deficiencies finally determined for 1992 through 1996. See Beane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-152.

The purpose of the Court's order for an accounting was to determine whether any amounts had been collected with respect to the deficiencies for 2001 through 2005. Petitioners claim that amounts collected in relation to Hook's bankruptcy must have been applied to the years before the Court in this case because the official transcripts for those years show zero balances. The transcripts show zero balances because the amounts due have not been assessed during the pendency of this case and not because any amounts have been collected for those years.

Respondent filed an objection to the motion for refund and an accounting of funds collected during the relevant period and the application of those funds. Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, for petitioners' accounts were attached to the objection. The report also described a dispute about if and when credits were due for the value 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*294 of real properties quitclaimed by Hook to the Government in response to a bankruptcy court order. In any event, the accounting reported that none of the funds collected were applied or applicable to the deficiencies in this case.

Despite repetitious filings (and trial testimony) claiming overpayments, petitioners have not identified any payments or collections not accounted for in respondent's report. Nonetheless, petitioners sought modification of the Court's order to include alleged errors with respect to liabilities determined for 1992 through 1996; demanded that respondent's counsel be held in contempt and sanctioned; and filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking similar relief. Petitioners' motion for refund was denied for lack of jurisdiction. Cf. Ryals v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 178">127 T.C. 178, 127 T.C. 178">182 (2006); Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46">112 T.C. 46, 112 T.C. 46">49-51 (1999); Porter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-154.

At the time the case was called for trial, Smith claimed that his filing of the complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims divested this Court of jurisdiction. Smith cited section 6015(e)(3). His motion was denied as another dilatory tactic without merit.

Section 6015(e)(3)2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*295 provides:

(3) Limitation on Tax Court jurisdiction.—If a suit for refund is begun by either individual filing the joint return pursuant to section 6532—

(A) the Tax Court shall lose jurisdiction of the individual's action under this section to whatever extent jurisdiction is acquired by the district court or the United States Court of Federal Claims over the taxable years that are the subject of the suit for refund, and

(B) the court acquiring jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction over the petition filed under this subsection.

That section assumes, however, that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over the taxable years that are the subject of the suit for refund. It must be reconciled with section 7422(e), which gives the Tax Court sole jurisdiction of cases, such as this one, in which a notice of deficiency has been sent and a timely petition filed in this Court. Section 6015(e)(3) merely gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over a "stand-alone" proceeding under section 6015(e) brought when a refund suit is commenced in that court for the same years as the section 6015(e) petition. It cannot be used to oust this Court of jurisdiction obtained as a result of 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*296 a petition filed in response to a notice of deficiency. Because the U.S. Court of Federal Claims does not acquire jurisdiction over the tax liabilities for 2001 through 2005, section 6015(e)(3) does not apply here.

We have considered the other arguments raised, including petitioners' claims that the notice of deficiency is void and that they have been denied due process. None of petitioners' arguments have merit. Addressing them in detail would be a further waste of judicial resources and would only serve petitioners' intent to delay.

Smith will be given the benefit of respondent's settlement with Hook, and the reduced deficiencies, related additions to tax, and penalties will be sustained. His pointless rehashing of the decisions for 1992 through 1996, his repetitious motions, and his attacks on respondent's counsel and on the Court were not designed to accomplish anything favorable to petitioners in this proceeding; thus they appear to have been pursued primarily for delay. Smith is hereby warned that any additional proceedings brought by him in which he makes similar groundless arguments for the same purpose may result in imposition of a penalty not in excess of $25,000 under section 6673.

To 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278">*297 reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered in accordance with the stipulation between Hook and respondent.