I’ve pointed out before now that the evidentiary confines of Section 6015(e)(7), namely the administrative record and any “newly-discovered or previously unavailable evidence” make a mockery of the supposed de novo review of innocent spousery. But the trusty attorneys for Laura B. Schnackel, co-star of Gregory R. Schnackel and Laura B. Schnackel, T. C. 2024-76, filed 7/29/24, whom I’ll call Ed and How, earn a Taishoff “Good Job,” for slipping the surly bonds of the Taxpayer First Act.

Ed and How first raise innocent spousery in a pretrial motion for leave to file separate amended petition, after Laura and Greg petitioned the deficiencies for the three (count ’em, three) years at issue.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan notes the amended petition did not specify Section 6015(f), and Greg objected, but allows the amendment as an affirmative defense. IRS does concede innocent spousery, but Ch J TBS goes through the factors anyway, as Greg’s objection continues.

Note that here there is no administrative record, hence no Taxpayer First handcuffs.

“Section 6015(e)(7) prescribes the scope of review the Tax Court shall employ in cases such as this one. Paragraph (7) was added to section 6015 by Taxpayer First Act § 1203, 133 Stat. at 988, and applies to petitions for review of determinations made under section 6015 filed on or after July 1, 2019, and requests pending with the Internal Revenue Service on or after July 1, 2019. Section 6015(e)(7) does not apply because respondent did not issue a notice of determination.” T. C. 2024-76, at p 15, footnote 7. (Citation omitted).

Laura gets innocent spousery. She was educated as a nutritionist, only signed checks while at Greg’s engineering outfit, and didn’t get any extra benefits from Greg’s chicanery.

“Petitioner husband was deceitful in his relationship with his wife. He hid his affair and opened a secret credit card to hide spending associated with it. He funded the affair by diverting marital assets unbeknownst to petitioner wife. Considering all the facts and circumstances, petitioner wife did not have reason to know of the understatements.” T. C. Memo. 2024-76, at p. 17.

There’s a multi-million-dollar NYC condo (Kips Bay, with terrace), and a Range Rover, and the NE divorce court found Greg spent about $3 million on the affair.

Other than that, the case is mostly an indocumentado, Section 274 variation.

But add Ed’s and Howe’s tactical amendment to your toolbox, if you need a real trial for innocent spousery.