Harbin v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 9994–07.

CourtUnited States Tax Court
Citation137 T.C. 93,137 T.C. No. 7
Docket NumberNo. 9994–07.,9994–07.
PartiesLeonard W. HARBIN, Petitioner,andBernice Nalls, Intervenor v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Decision Date26 September 2011

137 T.C. 93
137 T.C. No. 7

Leonard W. HARBIN, Petitioner,andBernice Nalls, Intervenor
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 9994–07.

United States Tax Court.

Sept. 26, 2011.


[137 T.C. 93]

P filed a petition seeking relief from joint and several liability under sec. 6015, I.R.C. R contends that P is barred, under sec. 6015(g)(2), I.R.C., from seeking relief because P was involved and participated in the prior deficiency proceeding. P contends that he did not participate meaningfully in the prior deficiency proceeding. P's attorney in the prior deficiency proceeding also represented P's former spouse in that proceeding. P's attorney had a conflict of interest while representing P in the prior deficiency proceeding.

Held: P did not participate meaningfully in the prior deficiency proceeding. P is therefore not barred under sec. 6015(g)(2), I.R.C., from claiming relief from joint and several liability.

Andrew R. Roberson and Patty C. Liu, for petitioner.

Bernice Nalls, pro se.

Gorica B. Djuraskovic, for respondent.KROUPA, Judge:

This case arises from a petition for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 1 after respondent issued a Final Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability under section 6015 denying petitioner relief from deficiencies for 1999 and 2000 (years at issue). Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief under section 6015 from liability for the portions of the deficiencies for the years at issue that are attributable to his former wife's (intervenor) gambling activities (deficiencies at issue). We must decide whether petitioner is barred from obtaining any relief from liability under section 6015(g)(2) and whether petitioner is entitled to relief from liability under section 6015(b), (c) or (f) for the deficiencies at issue. We hold he is not barred and further hold that he is entitled to relief under section 6015(b).

[137 T.C. 94]

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. We incorporate the stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits by this reference.

Petitioner and intervenor were married in the 1990s and divorced in 2004. Intervenor gambled at casinos and played the lottery during their marriage. Intervenor maintained calendars and diaries related to her gambling activities for the years at issue. In addition, intervenor retained some of the receipts related to her gambling activities.

Petitioner prepared and filed a joint Federal income tax return for petitioner and intervenor for each of the years at issue. He gathered documents for purposes of substantiating intervenor's gambling winnings and losses that they reported on the returns. They reported all of her $45,540 of gambling winnings for 1999 and $113,445.50 for 2000. They also reported the corresponding gambling losses of $45,540 for 1999 and $108,945.50 for 2000. Petitioner reviewed the gambling records that he understood intervenor kept, and he also discussed with intervenor her gambling winnings and losses when preparing the returns. Petitioner did not know or have reason to know at the time each return was prepared that intervenor's gambling losses were inaccurately reported.

Respondent began in 2001 an examination for the years at issue and focused primarily on whether the claimed deductions for certain rental expenses and intervenor's gambling losses were allowable. Intervenor stopped cooperating during the examination and provided the examiner with documents different from those she had provided petitioner. Respondent issued a deficiency notice to petitioner and intervenor for the years at issue.

The deficiency case was docketed at docket No. 10774–04 (prior deficiency case). Petitioner was over 60 years old and was retired at the time of the prior deficiency case. James E. Caldwell (Mr. Caldwell) represented both petitioner and intervenor in the prior deficiency case. He signed all of the filings with the exception of the petition and the amended petition. Respondent corresponded with, requested documents from and attempted to scheduled meetings with Mr. Caldwell, not petitioner.

[137 T.C. 95]

Petitioner depended on intervenor to contest the deficiencies at issue. It was intervenor who engaged in the gambling activities that gave rise to the deficiencies at issue, and she was the one with personal knowledge about the winnings and losses associated with the gambling activities. It also was intervenor who was responsible for maintaining and providing information regarding the gambling activities.

The parties executed a stipulated decision that petitioner and intervenor owed deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties for the years at issue. Neither petitioner nor intervenor requested relief under section 6015 during the prior deficiency case for either year at issue. No party to the prior deficiency case filed a notice of appeal, and the decision of the Tax Court became final on June 19, 2005. See secs. 7481(a)(1), 7483.

While the prior deficiency case was going forward, Mr. Caldwell also represented petitioner and intervenor in their contentious divorce. Mr. Caldwell represented both petitioner and intervenor in the prior deficiency case and the divorce proceeding until the divorce was finalized shortly before trial in the prior deficiency case. Petitioner's and intervenor's financial interests and interests in the allocation of liability for the deficiencies at issue were adverse in the prior deficiency case. Mr. Caldwell's joint representation of petitioner and intervenor in the prior deficiency case created a conflict of interest.

Mr. Caldwell did not explain the advantages and risks of joint representation to petitioner. Mr. Caldwell failed to disclose the conflict of interest to petitioner. He never asked petitioner to waive the conflict of interest, and petitioner never did. Mr. Caldwell proceeded with the joint representation of petitioner and intervenor despite the conflict of interest.

Respondent applied an overpayment credit for 2004 to petitioner's unpaid tax liability for 1999. Petitioner contested respondent's action. Specifically, petitioner contested that he owed the deficiencies at issue.

Petitioner requested relief under section 6015 from the deficiencies at issue. Petitioner followed numerous formalities, including submitting a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Petitioner also submitted a Form 12510, Questionnaire for Requesting Spouse, and an 18–page facsimile

[137 T.C. 96]

from intervenor. Petitioner was 70 years old and retired at the time he sought innocent spouse relief.

Respondent sent a preliminary determination letter proposing to deny petitioner's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • WHISTLEBLOWER 14106-10W v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 8 Diciembre 2011
    ...section 7623(b)(4) a letter from the Whistleblower Office denying a claim on the grounds that no award determination could be made under [137 T.C. No. 7] section 7623(b) constitutes a determination conferring jurisdiction on this Court. Cooper v. Commissioner, supra at II. Respondent's Moti......
  • Thompson v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 27 Diciembre 2011
    ...of deficiency, the parties agree that respondent's determination regarding the deficiency and penalty pursuant to I.R.C. § 6662(h) [137 T.C. No. 7] for 2001, modified as set forth on the Audit Statement and Statement — Income Tax Changes attached hereto as Exhibit B, is correct. [Emphasis E......
  • Koprowski v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 13048-10
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 6 Febrero 2012
    ...may be entered against such party"--i.e., against Mr. Koprowski.Mr. Koprowski's attention is also directed to Harbin v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. No. 7 (Sept. 26, 2011), and Haag v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-87 (Apr. 19, 2011), slip op. at 18-20, two recent decisions of this Court that dis......
  • Haag v. Shulman
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 2 Julio 2012
    ...meaningfully in prior proceedings is determined by looking to the “totality of the facts and circumstances,” see Harbin v. Comm'r, 137 T.C. 93, 98 (2011), but the Tax Court has listed certain factors— e.g., “exercising exclusive control over” conduct in a prior proceeding, “having a high le......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT