Smith v. Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COLVIN,
Petitioner was married to Margaret Smith (Margaret) during the years at issue (1980-1982) and they filed joint returns for those years. Respondent determined that Margaret was entitled to relief as an innocent spouse and issued the notice of deficiency solely to petitioner. We hold that
FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts of this case*162 have been fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122, and are so found.
Petitioner was a resident of Baltimore, Maryland when he filed his petition in this case.
Petitioner was married to Margaret on July 24, 1966, and divorced from her on June 27, 1984. Petitioner and Margaret filed joint income tax returns for taxable years 1980, 1981, and 1982. For taxable year 1983, petitioner filed a return marked "married, filing separately."
On or about November 15, 1985, petitioner filed Forms 1040-X with respect to taxable years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983 reporting and self-assessing additional amounts of income. The Forms 1040-X were signed only by petitioner. Respondent received the Forms 1040-X, but made no assessments based on them.
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax for taxable years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983 as follows:
| Additions to Tax Under Sections | ||||
| Year | Deficiency | 6653(b)(1) | 6653(b)(2) 2 | 6661 |
| 1980 | $ 7,299 | $ 3,649.91 | -- | -- |
| 1981 | $ 11,854 3 | $ 5,927.39 | -- | -- |
| 1982 | $ 11,914 | $ 5,597.41 | 50% of the | $ 2,798.71 |
| interest on | ||||
| $ 11,194 | ||||
| 1983 | $ 5,906 | $ 2,953.00 | 50% of the | $ 1,476.50 |
| interest on | ||||
| $ 5,906 | ||||
A notice of deficiency dated April 10, 1987 was issued to petitioner in his name only for taxable years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. No notice of deficiency was issued to Margaret for taxable years 1980, 1981, and 1982 as a result of respondent's administrative determination, made before the issuance of the notice of deficiency to petitioner, that Margaret was an "innocent spouse" pursuant to
If the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner is found to be valid, petitioner concedes that he is liable for the deficiencies in tax and additions to tax as set forth in the notice of deficiency for taxable*164 years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983.
OPINION
We must decide whether the statutory notice of deficiency issued to petitioner in his name alone is valid with respect to taxable years 1980, 1981, and 1982 for which petitioner filed joint returns.
(d) Special rules. -- For purposes of this section -- * * *
(3) if a joint return is made, the tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and the liability with respect to the tax shall be joint and several.
(2) Joint income tax return. -- In the case of a joint income tax return filed by husband and wife, such notice of deficiency may be a single joint notice, except that if the Secretary has been notified by either spouse that separate residences have been established, then, in lieu of the single joint notice, a duplicate original of the joint notice shall be sent by certified mail or registered mail to each spouse at his last known address.
Petitioner argues that the notice of deficiency fails to meet the requirements of
Petitioner reads
We do not draw that inference from the language either. To do so would be incompatible with the joint and several tax liability of spouses who file jointly. 4
One of the fundamental characteristics of joint and*168 several liability is that the obligee, respondent here, may proceed against the obligors separately and may obtain separate judgments against each. * * * For purposes of applying these rules to the instant case, we may consider an assessment entered by respondent as equivalent to a judgment * * *. [Citations omitted.]
In
but if he wishes to send a joint notice and has been notified that the spouses have established separate residences, he must send a duplicate original of the joint notice to each spouse. The statute does not expressly forbid respondent from sending separate notices to the spouses or to one of them * * *.
The provision relating to the sending of duplicate originals of joint notices where respondent has been notified that the spouses have separate addresses clearly was intended to assure that each spouse received actual notice, if respondent chose to send a joint notice of deficiency. There was no intention, however, to forbid respondent from sending separate notices, regardless of the addresses of the spouses. * * *
Similarly, in
Accordingly, we hold that
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and as in effect during the years in issue.↩
2. Respondent determined additions to tax under sec. 6653(b)(2) for tax years 1980 and 1981. Since sec. 6653(b)(2) was enacted in 1982, and is first applicable to taxes paid after September 3, 1982, however, these additions to tax are inapplicable in this case until calendar year 1982. ↩
3. Although respondent on brief stated the 1981 deficiency to be $ 11,848, we will use the amount set forth in the notice of deficiency because there was no explanation for the discrepancy in amounts and petitioner otherwise used the same amount as in the notice of deficiency.↩
4. Under the common law concept of joint and several liability, a creditor may sue one or more of the parties to the liability separately or together at his option.
;Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Sztanyo Trust, 693 F. Supp. 531, 540 (E.D. Mich. 1988)In ; Black's Law Dictionary 751 (5th ed. 1979).Re Northeast Dairy Co-op Federation, Inc., 88 Bankr. 21↩, 23 (Bankr. N.D. N.Y. 1988)5. See
("Once respondent determined that there was a deficiency, he was authorized to send a notice of deficiency to either or both of the spouses who signed the joint return.").Estate of Pearson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-366↩6. See
.Griebel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1965-210↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.