Section 6015(c) apportioned relief generally (love that word!) requires successful requestor to recognize his/her own items, even while requiring non-requestor to retain their own.

IRS does seem to allow a cutoff in Manuela C. Smith, Petitioner and Ulysesus A. Hodge III, Intervenor, T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-6, filed 6/12/2025. Manuela and Uly were separated and lived apart during year at issue. Although Manuela assembled the documents for the paid preparer of their 1040 MFJ, Uly never gave her the 1099-MISC for his SE nor the 1099-C for his written-off debt.

They always had separate bank accounts, never any joint account.

On the hearing, Uly asserted that Manuela must have known he had other income, as she “had access to his bank account; as he put it, she could not have been ‘completely oblivious’ to it.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-6, at p. 5.

Not good enough for CSTJ Zachary S. (“High-Rise”) Fried, making his debut as CSTJ. Actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge, is the test. All Uly’s separate income documents were sent to Uly’s separate address.

“Actual knowledge is not to be inferred from evidence that the electing spouse merely had reason to know of the omitted income. See S. Rep. No. 105-174, at 59 (1998), reprinted in 1998-3 C.B. 537, 595 (‘[A]ctual knowledge must be established by the evidence and shall not be inferred based on indications that the electing spouse had a reason to know.’).” T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-6, at p. 5.

But Manuela did have income of her own. CSTJ Fried’s disposition thereof is the reason for the headline first abovewritten at the head hereof (as my expensive colleagues would say). And of course it’s in a footnote.

“During [year at issue] petitioner received wages of $2,850 from ZMF that were not reported on petitioner and intervenor’s joint federal income tax return…. At the beginning of trial, respondent’s counsel indicated that the income was de minimis and was thus not excluded from the relief under section 6015(c) that respondent was conceding. Intervenor does not argue that, because the income was allocable to petitioner, she is not entitled to relief under section 6015(c) relating to the portion of the deficiency for [year at issue] which is attributable to that income. Under the circumstances, we do not consider that question.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-6, at p. 5, footnote 3.

Taishoff says, c’mon Judge, that’s piling on. Uly may or may not be a sympathetic character, and maybe his testimony was less than candid (see T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-6, at p. 5; I didn’t see the hearing), but he was pro se, and IRS folded. Sticking him with Manuela’s unreported income, de minimis or not, when he can’t appeal, is a bit much.