                        T.C. Memo. 2003-306



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   NORA ARANDA, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5168-02.              Filed November 5, 2003.


     Ruben Trey Arvizu III, for petitioner.

     Michael L. Boman, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     MARVEL, Judge:   This case arises from a request for relief

under section 60151 with respect to petitioner’s 1985 and 1986

taxable years.   Respondent determined that petitioner is entitled

to partial relief from joint and several liability under section


     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 2 -

6015, and petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review of

respondent’s determination.    The issue presented is whether

petitioner is eligible for additional relief from joint and

several liability under section 6015(b).2

                              Background

     The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to

Rule 122.   The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by

this reference.   Petitioner resided in Hobbs, New Mexico, when

the petition in this case was filed.

     Petitioner was married to Domingo P. Aranda (Mr. Aranda)

during the taxable years at issue.       Petitioner and Mr. Aranda

filed joint Federal income tax returns for 1984, 1985, and 1986.

In 1988, Mr. Aranda was arrested for drug violations and

sentenced to serve 24 years in prison.       Petitioner was not

charged with any criminal offense.       On May 12, 1988, respondent

made jeopardy assessments against petitioner and Mr. Aranda for

1984, 1985, and 1986 in the following amounts:




     2
      In the stipulation of facts, petitioner asserted relevancy
objections with respect to Exhibits 4-R and 5-R. Because
petitioner’s arguments for relief under sec. 6015(b) rely solely
on the notice of determination, we sustain petitioner’s
objections to the exhibits.
                                    - 3 -

              Additional          Additions to tax
    Year      income tax      Sec. 6653(b)    Sec. 6661     Interest

    1984      $5,534.91       $2,464.87       $1,384.70     $1,997
    1985      16,754.98        8,006.41        3,050.43      3,647
    1986      28,848.86       22,157.87        6,528.77      3,190

     On July 8, 1988, respondent issued a notice of deficiency

for 1984 and 1985 and a separate notice of deficiency for 1986.

Petitioner and Mr. Aranda did not file a petition in this Court

with respect to either notice.       Because the deficiencies

determined in the notices of deficiency were less than what

respondent had assessed earlier as jeopardy assessments,

respondent abated portions of the jeopardy assessments on March

6, 1989.     After taking the abatements into account, the income

tax deficiencies and additions to tax assessed with respect to

petitioner and Mr. Aranda for 1984, 1985, and 1986 were as

follows:

                                              Additions to Tax
     Year         Deficiency           Sec. 6653(b)      Sec. 6661

     19841        $3,361.16               $2,464.87          --
     1985         12,201.72                8,006.41       $3,050.43
     1986         26,115.08               22,157.87        6,528.77
     1
      The parties concede that the 1984 tax liability is no
longer at issue. Petitioner failed to request relief for that
taxable year in her Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse
Relief.

Petitioner has paid $23,203.83 and $38,287.20 on the 1985 and

1986 tax liabilities, respectively.

     On March 12, 1999, petitioner was granted a divorce from Mr.

Aranda.     On May 19, 1999, petitioner filed Form 8857, Request for
                                 - 4 -

Innocent Spouse Relief, requesting relief only under section

6015(b) for the taxable years 1985 and 1986.3   Petitioner’s

request for relief stated in relevant part:

     I feel that I should not be liable for a debt to the
     IRS that I have been paying since 1992.

     * * * Prior to [Mr. Aranda’s] conviction IRS prepared
     an audit on our assets for 1985, 1986 and 1987. They
     charged us $104,000 (interest and penalty not
     included). I was stuck with this debt, due to being
     married to him. I did not commit the crime, but yet,
     I’m paying. * * * I feel that it is time to set me
     free.

     On November 16, 2001, respondent issued a notice of

determination that granted petitioner partial relief from joint

and several liability in amounts equal to the additions to tax

for fraud, plus interest, determined with respect to 1985 and

1986, but denied relief with respect to the balance of the 1985

and 1986 assessments.4   The notice of determination specifically

stated:   “We’ve determined you are granted partial relief for the

tax years shown above.   * * *   We find you eligible for relief

under Section 6015(b) in the amount of $8,006.41 plus interest

for 1985 and $22,157.87 plus interest for 1986.”


     3
      In the Form 8857, petitioner also requested relief for
1987. Respondent determined that no relief could be granted
because petitioner had paid the 1987 liability in full.
Petitioner did not petition for review of respondent’s
determination with respect to 1987.
     4
      In a letter dated June 29, 2000, respondent denied
petitioner’s request for relief. Petitioner appealed the
decision administratively, and respondent’s final notice of
determination of Nov. 16, 2001, followed.
                                 - 5 -

     Petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court under

section 6015(e) for review of respondent’s determination.    In her

petition, petitioner alleges:    (1) “Petitioner did not know and

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

(2) “It would be inequitable to hold Petitioner liable for the

deficiency, taking into account all the facts and circumstances.”

Petitioner requests abatement of all tax and additions to tax for

1985 and 1986 and a refund of amounts paid on the 1985 and 1986

assessments.

                            Discussion

     Generally, taxpayers filing a joint Federal income tax

return are each responsible for the accuracy of their return and

are jointly and severally liable for the full tax liability.

Sec. 6013(d)(3).   However, in certain circumstances, a taxpayer

may obtain relief from joint and several liability under section

6015.

     In this case, petitioner relies upon section 6015(b)(1)

which authorizes respondent to grant relief from joint and

several liability if the taxpayer satisfies each requirement of

subparagraphs (A) through (E).    Section 6015(b)(1) provides:

          SEC. 6015(b). Procedures for Relief From Liability
     Applicable to All Joint Filers.--

          (1) In general.–-Under procedures prescribed by
     the Secretary, if--

               (A) a joint return has been made for a
          taxable year;
                               - 6 -

               (B) on such return there is an understatement
          of tax attributable to erroneous items of 1
          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 of 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,

     then the other individual shall be relieved of
     liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and
     other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent such
     liability is attributable to such understatement.

Our jurisdiction to review petitioner’s claim for relief is

conferred by section 6015(e), which allows a spouse who has

requested relief from joint and several liability to contest the

Commissioner’s denial of relief by filing a timely petition in

this Court.

     There is no dispute that petitioner satisfies subparagraphs

(A) and (E) of section 6015(b)(1).     Petitioner filed joint

returns for 1985 and 1986 with Mr. Aranda, as required by section

6015(b)(1)(A), and made a qualifying election on Form 8857 for

taxable years 1985 and 1986, as required by section

6015(b)(1)(E).   However, respondent contends that petitioner has
                                 - 7 -

not satisfied the requirements of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D)

of section 6015(b)(1).

     Except as provided by section 6015, the electing spouse

bears the burden of proving that he or she satisfies each

requirement of section 6015(b)(1).5      See Rule 142(a).   The record

before us is devoid of any evidence establishing that petitioner

meets all of the requirements of section 6015(b)(1) and that she

is entitled to additional relief under section 6015.

     Failure to produce evidence, in support of an issue of fact

as to which a party has the burden of proof and which has not

been conceded by such party’s adversary, may be a ground for

resolving the issue against that party.      Rule 149(b).

Furthermore, although facts may be established by stipulation, a

stipulation of facts does not relieve the party bearing the

burden of proof from producing evidence in support of factual

findings that have not been adequately established by the

stipulation.    Id.   Because petitioner must prove that she

satisfies each requirement of section 6015(b)(1) in order to

obtain additional relief under section 6015 and because

petitioner has failed to introduce evidence that she satisfies

the requirements of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section

6015(b)(1), respondent contends that petitioner is not entitled

to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 in

     5
        Petitioner does not contend that sec. 7491 applies to this
case.
                               - 8 -

excess of that already allowed.

     Relying solely on an interpretation of respondent’s notice

of determination, petitioner argues on brief that she is entitled

to additional relief under section 6015(b).   Her arguments are

confusing but appear to be as follows:   (1) Respondent has

already determined in his notice of determination that petitioner

met all of the requirements for relief from joint and several

liability under section 6015(b) with respect to a portion of the

1985 and 1996 tax liabilities; (2) as a result, we should

interpret respondent’s notice of determination as granting

partial relief from the actual tax liability in the amounts

indicated, which would then reduce petitioner’s liability for the

additions to tax and interest proportionately; and (3) the notice

of determination does not state that it is only granting relief

from the additions to tax for fraud and related interest nor does

it mention section 6653(b).   We reject petitioner’s arguments.

Although the notice of determination is ambiguous regarding the

nature of, and basis for, respondent’s determination that

petitioner is entitled to partial relief from joint and several

liability for the 1985 and 1986 assessments, the notice of

determination is clear that respondent granted petitioner partial

relief only.   Regardless of how we interpret respondent’s notice

of determination, petitioner had an obligation to demonstrate
                                 - 9 -

that she satisfied each requirement of section 6015(b)(1) in

order to obtain any additional relief from joint and several

liability for the 1985 and 1986 assessments.     This petitioner

failed to do.     For example, petitioner introduced no evidence

beyond the stipulated facts to prove that she had no knowledge or

reason to know that her 1985 and 1986 returns had understated the

tax liability of herself and Mr. Aranda or that it would be

inequitable to hold her liable for the 1985 and 1986 assessments.

Petitioner made a strategic decision not to offer additional

evidence and to rely instead on an argument based on an

interpretation drawn from a less than carefully drafted notice of

determination.6    In so doing, petitioner failed to carry her

burden of proof with respect to the requirements of section

6015(b)(1).

         We also reject petitioner’s argument regarding the

interpretation of the notice of determination.     Although the

notice of determination does not clearly state that the relief

provided by respondent was relief from the additions to tax for

fraud and related interest, nor does it mention section 6653(b),

the amounts listed in the notice of determination correspond

exactly to the amounts of the additions to tax for fraud assessed


     6
      That decision may reflect a concern about what any
additional evidence might show. Respondent contends that
petitioner profited from the omitted income and may have had
reason to know that at least some of Mr. Aranda’s income was not
shown on the 1985 and 1986 returns.
                              - 10 -

with respect to 1985 and 1986, and the relief granted to

petitioner is consistent with a determination made under section

6653(b)(4).7

     We hold, therefore, that petitioner is not entitled to any

relief from joint and several liability for the 1985 and 1986

assessments under section 6015(b) in excess of that already

granted by respondent.   We do not address whether petitioner

qualifies for relief from joint and several liability under

section 6015(c) or (f) because petitioner has not requested

relief under those provisions.

     We have considered the remaining arguments of petitioner for

a contrary result and, to the extent not discussed above, find

those arguments to be irrelevant, moot, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                          Decision will be entered

                                    for respondent.




     7
      Sec. 6653(b)(4) provides that a spouse who files a joint
return shall not be liable for the addition to tax for fraud
unless some part of the underpayment is due to the fraud of that
spouse. In a deficiency suit, the Commissioner bears the burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that some part of an
underpayment is due to the fraud of that spouse. See sec.
7454(a); Rule 142(b).
