                       T.C. Memo. 2003-330



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  BRENDA WALLACE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 10229-02.               Filed December 1, 2003.


     Brenda Wallace, pro se.

     Susan Smith Canavello, for respondent.



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

     COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge:    Petitioner applied for

relief from joint liability under section 60151 for the 1996 tax

year based on Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.

Petitioner's request was denied.



     1
          Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code.
                               - 2 -


     Some of the facts were stipulated.    Those facts, with the

annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by

reference.   Petitioner's legal residence at the time the petition

was filed was Shreveport, Louisiana.

     Petitioner was married to Wayland Wallace (Mr. Wallace)

during 1996.   They had two daughters of their marriage.

Petitioner and Mr. Wallace never separated or divorced.     He died

on April 27, 1999.

     Petitioner and Mr. Wallace were both employed during 1996.

Petitioner's only income that year was wage and salary income of

$7,840.   She was employed as an interpreter for the deaf.

     Mr. Wallace filed a timely Federal income tax return for

1996.   That return included only his income and deductions

related thereto.   It did not include petitioner's income, nor did

she sign the return.   The return reflected an income tax

liability of $2,299, withholding credits of $3,694, and an

overpayment of $1,395.   The IRS applied $35.36 of the overpayment

to an income tax liability of Mr. Wallace for another tax year

and refunded the balance of $1,359.64.

     During 1998, petitioner and Mr. Wallace filed an amended

Federal income tax return for 1996.    The sole purpose of the

amended return was to elect a filing status of married filing

jointly and to include petitioner's income for 1996, which was

not included on the original return filed by Mr. Wallace.     The
                               - 3 -


amended return reflected an additional income tax of $1,938, all

of which was attributable to petitioner's 1996 income.    The

$1,938 tax liability was not paid, and it is for that liability

that petitioner seeks relief under section 6015.2    Respondent has

made no adjustments to either the separate return initially filed

by Mr. Wallace or the amended return filed by petitioner and Mr.

Wallace in which they elected the filing status of married filing

jointly.   Thus, respondent has not determined any deficiency

against petitioner or Mr. Wallace.     This case, therefore,

involves petitioner's application for relief under section 6015

for a tax liability attributable solely to her income.

     On the Form 8857 filed by petitioner seeking relief, she did

not attach or submit a written statement stating the basis upon

which she claimed relief.   Moreover, on the Form 8857, petitioner

erroneously stated that the tax liability for which she sought

relief was due to erroneous items of her spouse.     In the

stipulation, however, petitioner agreed that the tax liability

was attributable solely to her income.     Petitioner's sole basis



     2
          Even though the original return was not a joint return,
respondent agreed at trial that petitioner and Mr. Wallace had
properly elected a filing status of married filing jointly based
on the amended return. Sec. 6013(b) provides generally that, if
an individual has filed a separate return for a taxable year for
which a joint return could have been filed, such individual and
his or her spouse may thereafter file a joint return for such
year after the date prescribed by law for the filing of the
return.
                                - 4 -


for relief is that she was unemployed at the time the amended

return was filed and had no assets or other resources to pay the

tax liability.   At the time of trial, however, petitioner was

employed.

     Respondent denied petitioner's application for relief on the

ground that the tax liability in question was entirely

attributable to her income.

     Generally, spouses filing a joint income tax return are each

fully responsible for the accuracy of their return and for

payment of the tax liability.   Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000).   Section 6015, however,

provides various means by which a spouse can be relieved of this

joint and several obligation.   The Court's jurisdiction here

arises under section 6015(e), as petitioner's claim for relief is

based upon what is referred to generally as a "stand alone"

petition.   Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 497 (2002).

     Respondent considered petitioner's claim under section

6015(b), (c), and (f) and denied her application for relief.

     With respect to relief under section 6015(b), in Washington

v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146 (2003), this Court noted that

relief under that provision is based upon an "understatement" of

tax attributable to erroneous items of the other spouse.     Here,

as in Washington v. Commissioner, supra, there is no

"understatement" of tax as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(A), nor
                               - 5 -


are there erroneous items of the other spouse.   Petitioner merely

seeks relief from payment of that portion of the tax shown on the

joint return that was not paid when the return was filed.

Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to relief under section

6015(b) because there was no "understatement" of tax.

     Similarly, under section 6015(c), which provides relief from

joint liability for spouses who filed a joint return but who are

no longer married, or legally separated, or have lived apart for

a 12-month period, this Court further held in Washington v.

Commissioner, supra at 146, that "Relief is not available under

section 6015(c) with respect to an unpaid liability for tax

reported on the return."   Here, petitioner seeks relief of a tax

that was reported on the return.   Section 6015(c), therefore,

allows no relief to petitioner.3

     Section 6015(f) provides for equitable relief with respect

to any unpaid tax, any deficiencies in tax, or any portion

thereof if relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c),

and if "taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it

is inequitable to hold the individual liable" for such liability.

To prevail under section 6015(f), the taxpayer must prove that


     3
          Additionally, sec. 6015(c)(1) provides that relief is
limited to the portion of the deficiency properly allocable to
the taxpayer seeking relief. Since the unpaid tax in this case
is totally attributable to petitioner's income, sec. 6015(c)(1)
precludes any relief to petitioner.
                               - 6 -


the denial of equitable relief by the IRS was an abuse of

discretion.   Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 146; Jonson v.

Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002); Cheshire v. Commissioner,

115 T.C. 183 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002).

     Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribed

guidelines setting forth various factors considered in

determining whether a taxpayer is entitled to equitable relief

under section 6015(f).   Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.

Among the factors against granting of relief are:    (1) The unpaid

liability is attributable to the requesting spouse; (2) the

requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the reported

liability would be unpaid at the time the return was signed; (3)

the requesting spouse significantly benefited (beyond normal

support) from the unpaid liability; and (4) the requesting spouse

will not suffer economic hardship if relief is denied.

     Petitioner has failed to establish that there was an abuse

of discretion by respondent in denying her relief under section

6015(f).   Her sole argument is that, at the time the amended

return was filed in 1998, she was unemployed and did not have the

assets or resources to pay the tax.    She had previously been

employed, and, although she may have been unemployed at the time

the amended return was filed, she thereafter resumed employment.
                                 - 7 -


At the time of trial, petitioner was employed.       On this record,

the Court sustains respondent.




                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
