                        T.C. Memo. 2010-112



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                ELIZABETH E. JONES, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 17874-08.              Filed May 20, 2010.



     Frederick N. Widen, for petitioner.

     Anita A. Gill, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     HAINES, Judge:   This case is before the Court on a petition

for redetermination of a deficiency and an accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662(a)1 that respondent determined for


     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts
                                                   (continued...)
                                 -2-

2005.    The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner’s

former husband’s distributive share of the income of two pass-

through entities is includable in their joint income for the year

at issue, (2) whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint

and several liability pursuant to section 6015 if her former

husband’s distributive share of income is includable in their

joint income, and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the

accuracy-related penalty imposed under the provisions of section

6662(a).

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts, together with the attached exhibits, is

incorporated herein by this reference.     At the time she filed her

petition, petitioner resided in Ohio.

Personal Background

     Petitioner received an undergraduate degree in political

science from Ohio University and a master’s degree in education

and higher education administration.     Petitioner took courses in

accounting and economics while in college.     Petitioner worked as

a sales representative for Abbott Laboratories, Inc., for 12.5

years, but was no longer employed there at the time of trial.

After moving to Nevada in 2000, petitioner married David Jones



     1
      (...continued)
are rounded to the nearest dollar.
                                 -3-

(Mr. Jones) in 2001 and they had a daughter.   Mr. Jones was

employed as a pilot with Net Jets from 1999 until November 2006,

when he was terminated because of a drinking problem.

     Mr. Jones is a 45-percent shareholder of Hadley & Pech, Inc.

(Hadley & Pech), an aviation management company that is an S

corporation, and a 50-percent owner of Archipelago Aviation, LLC

(Archipelago), a limited liability company that charters aircraft

and is taxed as a partnership.   Roger Sutton (Mr. Sutton), who

was a friend of Mr. Jones’, owns the remaining 55 percent of

Hadley & Pech and 50 percent of Archipelago.   Neither entity has

a written operating agreement.

     Before 2006 petitioner relied on Mr. Jones to handle their

household finances and to secure and submit necessary tax

paperwork.    Mr. Jones likewise was responsible for the financial

and tax aspects of Hadley & Pech and Archipelago.   However, Mr.

Jones became addicted to alcohol and other substances that

interfered with his responsibilities to his family and his

businesses.   Mr. Jones entered rehabilitation programs at the

beginning of 2005 and again in September 2005.   Around the time

of Mr. Jones’ rehabilitation in September 2005, his business

partner, Mr. Sutton, seized all the records and computers of

Hadley & Pech and Archipelago and took them from Nevada to

Oregon, assuming full control over the financial and tax aspects

of the entities.
                                  -4-

     Upon completion of rehabilitation, Mr. Jones resumed

handling his family’s finances until October of 2006, when his

alcohol addiction required petitioner to take over.

Responsibility for filing the couple’s 2005 return, which was due

on October 15, 2006, fell to petitioner.     Petitioner was aware

that Hadley & Pech and Archipelago were in operation and that Mr.

Jones was an owner, and she immediately contacted Mr. Sutton to

obtain the 2005 Schedules K-1, Partner’s [or Shareholder’s] Share

of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., but he did not send them.

Petitioner subsequently visited a return preparer and filed the

couple’s 2005 joint income tax return on October 15, 2006.

Petitioner did not report any income from Hadley & Pech or

Archipelago on the 2005 return.

     For 2005 Hadley & Pech and Archipelago had $101,927 and

$212,298 of ordinary net business income, respectively.     Mr.

Jones’ shares of that income, as Mr. Sutton eventually reported

to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the Schedules K-1, were

$45,867 and $106,149, respectively.     Hadley & Pech’s cash

distributions for 2005 consisted of $115,000 to Mr. Sutton and

$10,000 to Mr. Jones, while Archipelago did not make any

distributions for 2005.   During 2005 petitioner was aware of the

cash distribution of $10,000 from Hadley & Pech, which was used

to pay their 2004 income tax liability.
                                 -5-

     Mr. Jones’ alcohol addiction led to the couple’s separation

on January 21, 2007.   Petitioner moved back to Ohio in January of

2007 and was granted a power of attorney over Mr. Jones’

financial matters.   Throughout 2007 petitioner made numerous

attempts to obtain the 2005 Schedules K-1 from Mr. Sutton,

ultimately receiving them in August 2007.

     On February 20, 2008, Mr. Jones and petitioner filed a

complaint in Nevada against Mr. Sutton, Hadley & Pech, and

Archipelago, alleging breach of contract and fraud.    The suit was

dismissed on June 10, 2008, as to defendants Mr. Sutton and

Archipelago because of lack of personal jurisdiction, and as to

Hadley & Pech because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction

on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

     On April 21, 2008, respondent issued a notice of deficiency

to petitioner and Mr. Jones.    In the notice of deficiency

respondent determined there were omissions from income for 2005

of $152,016 and thus a deficiency of $55,171 in joint income tax

and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $11,034.

The deficiency figure is based almost entirely on Mr. Jones’

unreported income from Hadley & Pech and Archipelago of $45,867

and $106,149, respectively.    Petitioner timely filed a petition

on July 21, 2008, in which she sought a redetermination of the

tax deficiency and penalty and raised a claim under section 6015

as an affirmative defense.    Mr. Jones did not join in the
                                  -6-

petition and failed to respond to a notice of filing of petition

and right to intervene.

     Petitioner and Mr. Jones entered into a voluntary separation

agreement on March 20, 2009.    The separation agreement did not

address Mr. Jones’ obligation to pay any outstanding income tax

liabilities for 2005 but stated that for 2007 petitioner and Mr.

Jones would select the tax method generating the least tax

liability for both and share the payment of tax equally for 2007.

Petitioner filed Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief,

on March 17, 2009.    A decree of dissolution of marriage was

entered on May 12, 2009.

                               OPINION

I.   Liability for Taxes on Income From Pass-Through Entities

     Section 61(a) defines gross income as “all income from

whatever source derived”.    Hadley & Pech, an S corporation, and

Archipelago, a partnership, are pass-through entities.    The

income from these entities is taxable to Mr. Jones, as a

shareholder in one and a partner in the other, to the extent of

his proportionate interests in the entities, irrespective of

whether he received the income.    See secs. 702(a), 1366(a).

     For 2005 Hadley & Pech reported $101,927 in income, 45

percent, or $45,867, of which was attributed to Mr. Jones under

section 1366(a)(1).    Although Mr. Jones received only a $10,000

cash distribution from Hadley & Pech in 2005, as a shareholder he
                                -7-

was required to recognize his 45-percent share of the S

corporation’s income even though it was not distributed.     See

Knott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-352.

     Citing Girgis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-556, affd. in

part, revd. in part on another ground and remanded without

published opinion 888 F.2d 1386 (4th Cir. 1989), petitioner

claims that, in light of Mr. Jones’ comparatively small $10,000

cash distribution, the $115,000 distribution to Mr. Sutton was

improper.   Petitioner asserts that because the cash distributions

to Mr. Jones and Mr. Sutton were not made in the same percentages

as their ownership interests, Hadley & Pech should treat Mr.

Sutton’s cash distribution as a deductible loss for the year.

     In Girgis, a partner embezzled receipts from the

partnership, and the innocent partner was able to establish not

only that the receipts were embezzled but the exact amount of the

embezzlement.   The Court allowed the partnership to reduce its

income by the amount of the embezzled receipts, producing a

partnership loss, which passed through to the innocent partner to

the extent of his pro rata share.     In the instant case,

petitioner provided no evidence to establish that the $115,000

distribution made by Hadley & Pech to Mr. Sutton during 2005 was

impermissible, much less that the disbursement rose to the level

of embezzlement.
                                 -8-

     Petitioner further claims that the 2005 Schedule K-1 she

later received from Hadley & Pech is inaccurate.   Thus, she

claims section 6037(c) permits her to report on her joint return

amounts different from those that Hadley & Pech reported on her

Schedule K-1.   Petitioner’s reliance on section 6037(c) to

challenge the Schedule K-1 is misplaced.   That section requires a

shareholder of an S corporation to treat subchapter S items in a

manner consistent with the treatment of the items on the

corporate return or to file with the Secretary a statement

identifying any inconsistency.   Sec. 6037(c)(1) and (2)(A)(ii).

Petitioner failed to file any such statement or otherwise notify

the Secretary of the inconsistent treatment.   Thus, petitioner

failed to comply with the requirements of section 6037(c).2

     Archipelago is an LLC that is taxed as a partnership.     For

2005, Archipelago reported ordinary net business income of

$212,298 on its partnership return but did not make a



     2
      If a shareholder of an S corporation fails duly to notify
the IRS of an inconsistency between her own return and that of
the corporation in a situation described in sec.
6037(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) where, at the time the shareholder files her
return, the corporation has already filed a return, the IRS may
use the procedures for mathematical or clerical errors to adjust
the shareholder’s pass-through items to be consistent with their
treatment on the corporation’s return. Sec. 6037(c)(3). In this
case, Hadley & Pech had not filed its return at the time
petitioner filed her joint return. While the statute still
contemplates that petitioner must notify the Secretary that her
return is inconsistent with Hadley & Pech’s, the effect of a
failure to notify described in sec. 6037(c)(3) does not apply in
this situation, nor does it affect our jurisdiction.
                                -9-

distribution to Mr. Sutton or Mr. Jones during 2005.     As a 50-

percent partner, Mr. Jones is required to recognize and report

$106,149, his share of the partnership income even though it was

not distributed to the partners.      United States v. Basye, 410

U.S. 441, 447-449 (1973); Burke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-

297, affd. 485 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2007); sec. 1.702-1, Income Tax

Regs.

     Petitioner contends that Mr. Sutton crafted an agreement

with Archipelago whereby all of Archipelago’s income for 2005

would be allocated solely to Mr. Sutton, and she requests that we

respect that agreement.   However, petitioner did not offer into

evidence any such agreement between Mr. Sutton and the

partnership and admits there was no written operating agreement

with respect to the partnership.   Section 704(b) provides, as

does section 1.704-1(b)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs., that if a

partnership makes no allocation as to a partner’s distributive

share of income or loss, or if the agreements provides for

allocations that do not have substantial economic effect, then

the partner’s distributive share shall be determined in

accordance with the partner’s interest in the partnership.

Because Mr. Sutton and Mr. Jones did not have a partnership

agreement providing allocations of their respective distributive

shares, Mr. Jones is responsible for reporting income

attributable to his 50-percent partnership interest.
                                  -10-

      Petitioner again asserts, with respect to Archipelago, that

she and Mr. Jones should not be required to pay the tax with

respect to this entity because during 2006 Mr. Sutton purportedly

caused Archipelago to “pay either to himself or one of his

entities substantially all of the cash of Archipelago Aviation,

LLC.”     Even though the year at issue in this case is 2005,

petitioner asserts that during 2006 Mr. Sutton wrongfully

received all of Archipelago’s cash.      However, petitioner provided

no evidence that any of Archipelago’s funds were wrongfully paid

to Mr. Sutton or to another of Mr. Sutton’s entities.     Moreover,

even if petitioner had established that funds were wrongfully

withdrawn from Archipelago during 2006, this would not affect the

income petitioner and Mr. Jones were obligated to report on their

2005 joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.3

II.   Innocent Spouse Treatment

      Generally, when a husband and wife file a joint Federal

income tax return, they are jointly and severally liable for the

full amount of the tax.     Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner,

114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000).    However, a spouse may qualify for


      3
      A taxpayer is entitled to deduct losses arising from the
theft of property under sec. 165(a). Any loss arising from theft
shall be treated as sustained during the taxable year in which
the taxpayer discovers the loss. Sec. 165(e). Petitioner
testified that she discovered during 2007 that Mr. Sutton had
taken the profits. Thus, even if petitioner established
embezzlement of funds, that loss would not be claimed for 2005.
See Marine v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 958 (1989), affd. without
published opinion 921 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1991).
                                 -11-

relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b),

(c), or (f) if various requirements are met.     Petitioner contends

she qualifies for full relief from joint liability under section

6015(b) and (c), and if not, that she is entitled to equitable

relief under section 6015(f).

     A.      Relief From Joint and Several Liability Under Section
             6015(b)

     Section 6015(b)(1) authorizes the Commissioner to grant

relief from joint and several liability for tax (including

interest, penalties, and other amounts) if the taxpayer

requesting relief satisfies each of the following five

requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (E):

             (A) A joint return has been made for a taxable
     year;

          (B) on such return there is an understatement of
     tax attributable to erroneous items of one individual
     filing the joint return;

          (C) the other individual filing the joint return
     establishes that in signing the return he or she did
     not know, and had no reason to know, that there was
     such understatement;

          (D) taking into account all the facts and
     circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other
     individual liable for the deficiency in tax for such
     taxable year attributable to such understatement; and

          (E) the other individual elects (in such form as
     the Secretary may prescribe) the benefits of this
     subsection not later than the date which is 2 years
     after the date the Secretary has begun collection
     activities with respect to the individual making the
     election * * *
                                 -12-

     The requesting spouse bears the burden of proving that she

satisfies each of these five requirements.    See Rule 142(a);

Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d

1181 (10th Cir. 2003).   If the requesting spouse fails to meet

any one of the five requirements, she fails to qualify for

relief.   Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 313 (2002), affd. 101

Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004).

     Respondent does not dispute that petitioner satisfies two

elements of section 6015(b)(1); namely, those regarding the

filing of a joint return and timely election under section

6015(b)(1)(A) and (E), respectively.    Thus, we consider only

whether petitioner satisfies the remaining three elements of

section 6015(b)(1).

           1.   Section 6015(b)(1)(B)

     The first element, in section 6015(b)(1)(B), is an

understatement of tax attributable to erroneous items of the

other person filing the joint return.   The parties agree that the

understatements of income tax arose from the failure to include

income from Hadley & Pech and Archipelago.   Respondent contends

that the investments in the partnerships are attributable to both

spouses and that petitioner had an interest in the partnerships.

Respondent cites the fact that petitioner was listed as a

plaintiff along with Mr. Jones in the Nevada suit against Mr.

Sutton, Hadley & Pech, and Archipelago.
                                 -13-

     We are not persuaded that the understatement is attributable

to petitioner or that she had an interest in the entities.

Petitioner’s name on the Nevada complaint is not sufficient to

prove that she held such an interest.       Moreover, the parties’

stipulations show that Mr. Jones is a 45-percent shareholder of

Hadley & Pech and a 50-percent owner of Archipelago and that Mr.

Sutton owns the remainder of each.      Respondent is bound by those

stipulations.     Thus, we conclude that the unreported income was

attributable to entities partially owned by Mr. Jones in which

petitioner had no interest, and the tax understatements resulting

therefrom were attributable solely to Mr. Jones.

             2.   Section 6015(b)(1)(C)

     The second element, in section 6015(b)(1)(C), is the

requirement that petitioner establish that in signing the 2005

joint tax return she did not know, and had no reason to know, of

the understatement of tax on that return attributable to the

omitted income from Hadley & Pech and Archipelago.       Respondent

claims petitioner knew or had reason to know that there was an

understatement on her 2005 joint income tax return.

     This Court has defined actual knowledge as “an actual and

clear awareness (as opposed to reason to know) of the existence

of an item which gives rise to the deficiency (or portion

thereof).”     Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 195 (2000),

affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002).       The record is clear that
                                 -14-

petitioner was aware that Hadley & Pech and Archipelago existed,

that they were operating during 2005, and that Mr. Jones was an

owner of the entities and received a $10,000 cash distribution

from Hadley & Pech during 2005 to pay the taxes owed for 2004.

Consequently, we find petitioner had actual knowledge of the

$10,000 cash distribution from Hadley & Pech before she signed

the joint 2005 Federal income tax return.

     We must address the remaining unreported income attributable

to Mr. Jones of $35,867 and $106,149 from Hadley & Pech and

Archipelago, respectively.     Where, as here, a taxpayer on notice

that her spouse had unreported income does not know the exact

amount of income, she must fulfill a duty of inquiry or risk

being charged with constructive knowledge of the understatement

of tax on the return.    Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256,

1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Demirjian v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-22.

     Responsibility for filing the 2005 joint income tax return

fell to petitioner only after Mr. Jones entered rehabilitation

shortly before the return was due.      Petitioner credibly testified

regarding her extensive efforts, both before and after filing the

return, to obtain the Schedules K-1 for Hadley & Pech and

Archipelago from Mr. Sutton.    We find petitioner acted as a

reasonable person would in such circumstances and properly met

her duty of inquiry.    Thus, petitioner did not have actual or
                                 -15-

constructive knowledge of the remaining $35,867 of unreported

income from Hadley & Pech or the $106,149 from Archipelago.

     3.      Section 6015(b)(1)(D)

     Finally, we consider 6015(b)(1)(D), which requires us to

evaluate all the facts and circumstances and determine whether it

would be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the

deficiencies in tax attributable Mr. Jones.    The factors we

consider in determining inequity for purposes of section

6015(b)(1)(D) are the same factors that we consider in

determining inequity for purposes of section 6015(f).     Alt v.

Commissioner, supra at 316; Juell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2007-219.4

     Several factors weigh in petitioner’s favor.    First, she and

Mr. Jones are no longer married or residing together.    Second,

petitioner was not actively involved in Hadley & Pech or

Archipelago and had no knowledge or reason to know of the

unreported income beyond Hadley & Pech’s $10,000 cash

distribution.     Third, petitioner is in compliance with the filing



     4
      Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01, 2003-2 C.B. 296, 297, lists
seven threshold conditions which must be satisfied before we
consider a request for relief under sec. 6015(f), and Rev. Proc.
2003-61, sec. 4.03, 2003-2 C.B. at 298, lists several factors
that we consider in determining whether to grant equitable relief
under sec. 6015(f). Respondent concedes that petitioner meets
six of the seven threshold conditions. However, in our holding
above we concluded that the tax liability at issue is
attributable solely to Mr. Jones. Thus we find petitioner meets
the seven threshold conditions.
                               -16-

of her tax returns for years after 2005.   On the other hand,

petitioner benefited from the omission of the income from the

couple’s joint return.   Moreover, petitioner failed to show that

she would experience economic hardship by paying the taxes owed

or that Mr. Jones has a legal obligation pursuant to the

separation agreement or divorce decree to pay the total

outstanding income tax liabilities for 2005.

     In balancing the factors, we find those in favor of relief

outweigh those that count against it.   On the basis of the above,

we find petitioner has carried her burden of proving that it

would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiency in tax

attributable to the unreported income from Archipelago and Hadley

& Pech of which she had no actual or constructive knowledge.

     4.   Section 6015(b)(2)

     Section 6015(b)(2) provides that if an electing spouse

satisfies all requirements of section 6015(b)(1) other than those

of section 6015(b)(1)(C), then relief from joint and several

liability for tax may be granted to the extent such liability is

attributable to “the portion of such understatement [of tax] of

which such individual did not know and had no reason to know.”

In accordance with our findings above, petitioner otherwise

satisfied the requirements of section 6015(b)(1) and under

section 6015(b)(2) is thus relieved of liability for the

deficiency in tax and the penalty for 2005 arising from the
                               -17-

omission of income from Hadley & Pech and Archipelago, except for

the portion of the tax deficiency and the penalty attributable to

the $10,000 cash distribution from Hadley & Pech of which she had

actual knowledge.

     B.   Relief From Joint and Several Liability Under Section
          6015(c) and (f)

     Petitioner further claims eligibility for relief under

section 6015(c) and, alternatively, section 6015(f).   Under

section 6015(c), if the requesting spouse is no longer married

to, or is legally separated from, the spouse with whom she filed

the joint return, the requesting spouse may elect to limit her

liability for a deficiency.   An election under section 6015(c) is

invalid, however, if the Secretary demonstrates that the

requesting spouse had actual knowledge, when signing the return,

of any item giving rise to a deficiency that is otherwise

allocable to the nonrequesting spouse.   Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C).   We

found above that petitioner was entitled to relief under section

6015(b) from tax attributable to all unreported income of which

she had no actual or constructive knowledge, and from the penalty

associated therewith.   Thus, we find it unnecessary to discuss

section 6015(c) because the relief, if any, available to her

under that section would be no greater than we allow her under

section 6015(b).

     Petitioner claims that to the extent she fails to qualify

for relief under section 6015(b) or (c), she is entitled to
                                -18-

equitable relief under section 6015(f).   Relief from joint and

several liability is available under section 6015(f) if, taking

into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable

to hold the taxpayer liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency and

she does not qualify for relief under section 6015(b) or (c).     We

previously considered the equitable factors found in section

6015(f) in our finding under section 6015(b)(1)(D) that

petitioner was entitled to relief under section 6015(b) for the

portion of the understatement of which she had no actual

knowledge.    However, because of petitioner’s actual knowledge of

the $10,000 cash received from Hadley & Pech for which we have

not granted relief, those equitable factors do not weigh in her

favor.   Thus, further discussion of section 6015(f) is

unwarranted, as it would yield no additional relief for

petitioner.

III. Section 6662(a) Penalty

     Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) imposes a 20-percent

accuracy-related penalty on the portion of any underpayment of

taxes that is attributable to negligence or disregard of rules

and regulations, or a substantial understatement of income tax.

An understatement is substantial if it exceeds the greater of 10

percent of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000.

Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).   The Commissioner bears the burden of

production with respect to penalties.   Sec. 7491(c); Higbee v.
                               -19-

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).    Once the burden of

production is met, the taxpayer must come forward with evidence

sufficient to show that the penalty does not apply.    Higbee v.

Commissioner, supra at 447.

     Petitioner’s understatement of tax is $55,171.    The

understatement exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax

required to be shown or $5,000.    Thus, the understatement is

substantial for purposes of section 6662(d)(1)(A), and respondent

has met his burden of production.

     Petitioner argues that she made a reasonable attempt to

comply with the income tax laws and did not disregard rules and

regulations.   Under section 6664(c)(1), an accuracy-related

penalty is not imposed on any portion of the underpayment as to

which the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.

The taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to those

issues.   Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 446.   The determination

of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good

faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all

pertinent facts and circumstances, including the extent of the

taxpayer’s efforts to assess his or her proper tax liability, and

the taxpayer’s education, knowledge, and experience.    Sec.

1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.    The extent of the taxpayer’s

efforts to assess the proper tax liability is generally the most

important factor.   Id.
                                 -20-

        Petitioner testified that neither she nor Mr. Jones received

the 2005 Schedules K-1 from Mr. Sutton informing them of Mr.

Jones’ distributive share of the income of the entities until

August 2007, well after the October 15, 2006, date of filing.

However, “the failure to receive tax documents does not excuse

taxpayers from the duty to report income.”      Du Poux v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-448.      Petitioner was unsure whether

she had informed the preparer of the 2005 return that the

Schedules K-1 were missing, and she made no disclosure on the

joint return of the missing documents that might reduce her

penalty.     Moreover, petitioner failed to notify the IRS of her

inconsistent treatment under section 6037(c).     Petitioner had

actual knowledge that Hadley & Pech and Archipelago were

operational, that Mr. Jones was an owner of each, and that he had

received a $10,000 cash distribution from Hadley & Pech during

2005.     Thus, petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proving

good faith and reasonable cause and is responsible for the

portion of the penalty attributable to the $10,000 cash

distribution of which she had actual knowledge.

     In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all

arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we

conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
                            -21-

To reflect the foregoing,


                                        Decision will be

                                   entered under Rule 155.
