If all the items giving rise to the deficiencies and underpayment are one spouse’s items, or s/he can’t prove they’re not, then Section 6015 innocent spousery is off the menu.

Fannie Wright, T. C. Memo. 2023-153, filed 12/27/23, is a disabled licensed practical nurse, whose late husband’s withholdings paid most of the taxes they owed. The problem was that for two of the three (count ’em, three) years at issue, Fannie’s SSDI was never reported, nor some “nominal” interest, so the SNOD covered those years. Year Three saw the SSDI reported, but a health care individual responsibility payment didn’t figure in, so late spouse’s withholdings didn’t stretch far enough.

Fannie’s trusty attorneys claim Fannie never consented to the joint returns for those years, having been deceived by late spouse.

Judge Gale: “…petitioner mistakenly conflates the grant of jurisdiction to review innocent spouse relief determinations in section 6015(e) with the conditions that she must satisfy to obtain such relief.” T. C. Memo. 2023-153, at p. 5. There was a claim for innocent spousery, a determination of the claim, and a timely petition here. As for relief, that’s another story: no joint return, no relief. But apparently that claim never gets very far.

Next trusty attorneys claim invalid assessments, but this is not the place to challenge them. In Year One, Fannie and late spouse both signed Form 5564 Notice of Deficiency – Waiver.  Fannie didn’t petition Year Two SNOD, so that’s gone. And Year Three was self-reported tax, but didn’t pay in full, so no SNOD; hence Fannie maybe so could fight that out in a CDP; see T. C. 2023-153, at p. 6, footnote 5 for that.

Getting to the point, all the items are Fannie’s. There’s no question about the SSDI. As to the “nominal” interest, “(T)he parties declined to present facts or arguments concerning to whom the interest income is attributable, and the notice is redacted so that we are unable to make the determination. Petitioner having failed to show the interest income is attributable to Mr. Wright, it follows it is attributable to her. Thus, the [ Years One and Two] deficiencies are entirely attributable to petitioner, consisting of her Social Security benefits and the interest income. She accordingly is ineligible for relief on that basis alone, and we will sustain Appeals’ determination denying relief under section 6015(b).” T. C. Memo. 2023-153, at p. 7. Ditto Section 6015(c).

So Section 6015(b) and Section 6015(c) relief are out. And because no obligation of the late non-requesting spouse remains, no equitable relief.

Edited to add, 12/28/23: Before anyone yells “what about hardship?” note this is a standalone. So far, no NFTL or NITL, so hardship is saved for a CDP.