No, Everybody Not Named Kisha.

Before heading home for the day off, there’s a designated hitter from the Obliging Judge David Gustafson.

Judge Gustafson gets a lot of badly-prepared motions, it would seem. Here’s Kisha C. Rose-Wiley, Docket No. 27562-14L, filed 7/2/15.

Kisha got a SNOD, didn’t petition, got a NITL, and did petition.

“Ms. Rose-Wiley alleged, ‘I am not liable for taxes. I have not had income’, thus challenging the underlying liability, pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B). She did not check the box requesting ‘innocent spouse’ relief. The Commissioner alleges that, during the CDP hearing, IRS Appeals solicited from her an innocent spouse claim on Form 8857, but that she did not submit such a claim. Appeals therefore sustained the proposed collection.

“Ms. Rose-Wiley then filed a petition with this Court, in which she again alleges that ‘I have no earned income’ and that ‘I … have not been employed in the last 10 years.’ Perhaps as a result of Appeals’ characterization of her claim, she also asserts “Innocent spouse” status, but her assertion is ‘Innocent spouse due to non employment’. Order, at p. 1 (Emphasis in original).

Well, that’s a nonstarter for Section 6015 relief.

But IRS’s counsel missed something.

Filing for summary J, IRS claims Kisha and hubby Mario filed jointly for the year at issue. Now what do you need to attach to your motion papers?

“However, the Commissioner’s submission does not include a copy of the income tax return showing Ms. Rose-Wiley’s signature, and his motion does not cite any other evidence to support the proposition that Ms. Rose-Wiley joined in the filing of this return.” Order, at p. 2.

So it’s not a question of innocence, but liability in the first place.

“If in fact Ms. Rose-Wiley did not join with her husband in filing the return, then she would apparently prevail in her challenge to underlying liability—not pursuant to section 6015 as an ‘innocent spouse’, but because a return filed solely by her husband would apparently not support an assessment of tax against Ms. Rose-Wiley.” Order, at p. 2.

But obliging as always, Judge Gustafson sends IRS’s counsel on a paper chase—find the return or something that looks like evidence that Kisha signed a joint return.

Comment is superfluous.