In Uncategorized on 02/05/2015 at 17:41

That’s the Section 6015(c)(3) question for Kateryna Brodskiy, Petitioner, and Ross Brodskiy, Intervenor, 2015 T. C. Sum. Op. 8, filed 2/5/15, and Judge Chiechi finds that, for Kateryna, the answer is “nothing.”

So Kateryna’s (and Appeals’) answer to Michel (or Miguel) Eyquem de Montaigne’s Renaissance skepticism nets Kateryna innocent spousehood.

All Ross has to show is a “…a copy of an email that intervenor sent to petitioner regarding the … return and petitioner’s response to intervenor’s email. In … intervenor’s email to petitioner states: ‘2010 taxes, final, filling [sic] at 2:30 pm’. Petitioner’s response by email to intervenor’s email states: ‘It looks ok. Pls scan certified mail slip so I’ll track it.’” 2015 T. C. Sum. Op. 8, at p. 11.

Kateryna, a CPA, wants innocent spousehood because she and Ross are separated, and the greatest part of the deficiencies relate to Ross’ software business. Ross prepared the return, and Kateryna claims she knows zilch about Ross’ softwaring.

Not a good day for Ross. “We reject intervenor’s position that, because petitioner should have known of the items giving rise to the deficiency … that are not allocable to her under sec. 6015(d), sec. 6015(c)(3)(C) precludes her entitlement to relief under sec. 6015(c). Indeed, we need not even determine on the record before us whether petitioner should have known about those items. That is because sec. 6015(c)(3)(C) does not apply unless the requesting spouse, here petitioner, has ‘actual knowledge’ of the items that gave rise to the deficiency in question and that are not allocable to the requesting spouse under sec. 6015(d).” 2015 T. C. Sum. Op. 8, at p. 8, footnote 3.

And as for the e-mail exchange, “(O)n the record before us, we reject intervenor’s contention that [the copy] establishes the actual knowledge that section 6015(c)(3)(C) requires in order to preclude petitioner’s entitlement to relief under section 6015(c). The deficiency … is almost entirely due to respondent’s disallowance… of deductions claimed …for certain expenses relating to intervenor’s software consulting business. Petitioner, whose testimony we found to be credible, testified that intervenor prepared the …return using a computer program for preparing returns and that she did not (1) participate in the preparation of that return or (2) give intervenor any advice regarding his preparation of that return. Petitioner also testified that (1) she had ‘nothing to do with his [intervenor’s] business’; (2) she had ‘no knowledge of miles he drove in his car, why he claimed it’; and (3) ‘this * * * expense [intervenor’s … claimed car and truck expenses and intervenor’s … claimed unreimbursed employee expenses] has nothing to do with me”. 2015 T. C. Sum. Op. 8, at pp. 10-11. (Footnote omitted).

What did she know? Nothing.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: