                     T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-100



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    RHONDA D. WHITE, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 11291-06S.              Filed June 19, 2007.



        Rhonda D. White, pro se.

        Ashley F. Giles, for respondent.




     COHEN, Judge:     This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect

when the petition was filed.       Pursuant to section 7463(b), the

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.
                                 - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,761 in petitioner’s

Federal income tax for 2002 and an addition to tax of $1,326.75

under section 6651(a)(1).   Unless otherwise indicated, all

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for

the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled

to any deductions disallowed in the statutory notice of

deficiency and whether petitioner is entitled to relief under

section 6015.

                             Background

     Certain facts have been deemed stipulated pursuant to

Rule 91(f).   Petitioner resided in Georgia at the time that her

petition was filed.    On March 24, 2004, she filed a joint Federal

income tax return for 2002 on a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, with Xavier White.    Petitioner filed a Complaint for

Divorce from Xavier White on November 28, 2005, and the Final

Judgment and Decree was entered on January 17, 2006.

     After reviewing the Form 1040 filed by petitioner and her

former husband, respondent disallowed the following claimed

itemized deductions:

     (a) $17,028 of medical and dental expenses;
     (b) $8,471 of gifts to charity; and
     (c) Job expenses and other miscellaneous deductions
         comprised of:
          (1) $16,649 of unreimbursed vehicle mileage
              expense;
                                - 3 -

          (2)   $1,258 of uniform expense;
          (3)   $468 of cell phone expense;
          (4)   $216 of pager expense;
          (5)   $185 of tax preparation fees; and
          (6)   $2,450 of attorney and accounting fees.

In her petition, petitioner maintains that she “was unaware and

not privy to what was filed” on the tax return submitted for

2002, and she requests relief from joint and several liability on

a joint return.

     In support of her claimed deductions, petitioner provided

copies of certain checks and other documents.    Many of the checks

appeared to be for personal expenses.    For example, checks were

written to chain drugstores, department stores, discount stores,

and shoe stores, with no corroboration or explanation that the

items purchased were deductible items.    An unsigned document

purportedly listing cash contributions was not accompanied by any

corroborating information, and no evidence of the contributions

was introduced at trial.    Documents purporting to record noncash

charitable contributions contained what appeared to be

exaggerated and patently unreasonable amounts for used property

allegedly contributed to a charitable organization.    The

organization shown on the purported receipts was not the

organization identified on the Form 1040.

     At the time of trial, petitioner’s testimony focused on her

claim that her former husband recommended the tax preparer for

the 2002 tax return, that he subsequently failed to cooperate
                               - 4 -

with respect to tax matters, and that she relied on her husband

with respect to the 2002 tax return.      She acknowledged, however,

that she had met with the tax return preparer, had provided

information to the tax preparer, and had signed her name and her

husband’s name to the 2002 return.

                             Discussion

     Aside from the stipulated documents that had been presented

to respondent’s Appeals officer, petitioner presented no evidence

with respect to the disallowed deductions claimed on her 2002

Federal income tax return.   She offered no reasonable cause that

would avoid the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for late

filing of the return.   She addressed only her contention that her

former husband should be responsible for the deficiency.

     Section 6015 provides for relief from joint and several

liability only in certain circumstances.     Section 6015(b) applies

only if, among other things, there is an understatement of tax

attributable to erroneous items of the other individual filing

the joint return (Xavier White), and the person seeking relief

(petitioner) establishes that, in signing the return, she did not

know, and had no reason to know, that there was such an

understatement.   Petitioner has failed to establish either of

those requirements.   Her signature appears on the checks tendered

to substantiate the disallowed deductions, and she directly

participated in preparation of the joint return.
                                  - 5 -

     Section 6015(c) provides procedures for an individual party

to a joint return to elect to limit liability to the amount of a

deficiency properly allocable to that individual.    Petitioner has

not made such an election and, in any event, has not shown that

any portion of the deficiency is properly allocable to Xavier

White.    Petitioner’s knowledge with respect to the items giving

rise to the deficiency also disqualifies her under section

6015(c).    Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C).

     Section 6015(f) provides for equitable relief if, taking

into account all of the facts and circumstances, it is

inequitable to hold an individual liable for a deficiency.      (A

similar limitation applies to relief under section 6015(b).)

Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances shown in

this case, we are not persuaded that it is inequitable to hold

petitioner liable for the deficiency and addition to tax for

2002.    That deficiency results from overstatement of deductions

on a return belatedly prepared with her participation, on which

she signed her own name and her husband’s.    As far as the record

reflects, the excessive deductions claimed were based on

representations by petitioner as to the nature of expenditures

represented by checks signed by her and by alleged receipts

bearing her name.    See Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296.    She

is not entitled to relief under section 6015.
                            - 6 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                    for respondent.
