1.8 Separate Liability Election for Former Spouses

If the IRS attempts to collect the taxes due on a joint return from you and you have since divorced or separated, you may be able to avoid or at least limit your liability by filing Form 8857 to request separate liability relief. If you qualify, you will be liable only for the part of the tax liability (plus interest and any penalties) that is allocable to you. If a tax deficiency is entirely allocable to your former spouse under the rules discussed below, you will not have to pay any part of it. However, you may not avoid liability for any part of a tax deficiency allocable to the other spouse if you had actual knowledge of the income or expense item that gave rise to the tax deficiency that the IRS is trying to collect. See below for details of the knowledge test.

Furthermore, you may not avoid liability to the extent that certain disqualified property transfers were made between you and the other spouse. An election may be completely denied for both spouses if transfers were made as part of a fraudulent scheme.

As with innocent spouse relief (1.7), the separate liability election applies only to tax understatements where the proper tax liability was not shown on the joint return. If the proper liability was shown but not paid, equitable relief (1.9) may be requested.

Are you eligible for the separate liability election?

You may make the separate liability election on Form 8857 if, at the time of filing:

1. You are divorced or legally separated from the spouse with whom you filed the joint return, or
2. You have not lived with your spouse (with whom you filed the return) at any time in the 12-month period ending on the date you file the election, or
3. The spouse with whom you filed the joint return has died.
You must be prepared to explain to the IRS which items giving rise to the tax understatement are allocable to you and which are allocable to the other spouse. However, you do not have to actually compute your separate liability on Form 8857.

Deadline for the election.

To request separate liability relief, you must file Form 8857 no later than two years after the IRS begins collection activities against you.

- - - - - - - - - -
image Caution
Actual Knowledge Bars Relief
The separate liability election generally allows you to avoid liability for the portion of a tax deficiency that is allocable to the other spouse. Such relief is unavailable, however, to the extent that you had actual knowledge of the omitted income or deducted item that gave rise to the tax deficiency.
- - - - - - - - - -

Actual knowledge of the item allocable to the other spouse bars relief.

If you elect separate liability treatment and the IRS shows that at the time you signed the joint return you had actual knowledge of an erroneous item (omitted income or improper deduction or credit) that would otherwise be allocated to the other spouse, you may not avoid liability for the portion of a deficiency attributable to that item. However, if you signed the return under duress, separate liability is not barred despite your knowledge.

The actual knowledge test is intended by Congress to be more favorable to the taxpayer than the “had reason to know” test under the innocent spouse rules (1.7). Congressional committee reports state that the IRS is required to prove that an electing spouse had actual knowledge of an erroneous item and may not infer such knowledge. According to the Tax Court, the IRS must prove actual knowledge by a “preponderance of the evidence.” If the IRS proves actual knowledge of an erroneous item, that item is treated as allocable to both spouses, so the IRS can collect that portion of the deficiency from either spouse.

Where income attributable to your spouse was omitted from your joint return, you will be considered to have “actual knowledge” of it, and separate liability relief will not be allowed, if you knew your spouse received the income, even if you did not know whether the correct taxable amount was reported on the return; see Example 1 below.

In the case of a disallowed deduction, the Tax Court requires the IRS to prove that you had actual knowledge of the “factual circumstances” that made the item nondeductible in order for relief to be denied. In one case, the Tax Court denied relief to a spouse who prepared the joint returns on which unsubstantiated Schedule C deductions attributable to her former husband’s business were claimed. She had “actual knowledge” because she had access to the business records and knew the extent of the substantiation available for the deductions when she prepared the returns.

In cases involving limited partnership tax-shelter deductions, the IRS may be unable to prove that the spouse claiming relief had disqualifying knowledge, but relief may still be partially denied if he or she received a tax benefit from the deductions; see Example 3 below.

Examples
1. Cheshire knew that her husband had received an early retirement distribution. She knew that the distribution had been deposited into their joint account and used to pay off a mortgage, buy a truck, pay other family expenses and provide start-up capital for the husband’s business. Cheshire’s husband falsely told her that a CPA had determined that most of his retirement distribution was not taxable. After they divorced, Cheshire made a separate liability election to avoid tax on the unreported income. She claimed that she was entitled to relief because she did not know that the taxable amount of the retirement distribution had been misstated on their joint return. The Tax Court held that she could not obtain relief because she knew about the retirement distribution. It is immaterial that she did not know that the reporting of the distribution on the tax return was incorrect. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The District of Columbia Circuit has also denied a wife’s claim for relief because she had actual knowledge of her husband’s retirement income.
2. You file a joint return on which you report wages of $150,000 and your husband reports $30,000 of self-employment income. The IRS examines your return and determines that your husband failed to report $20,000 of income, resulting in a $9,000 deficiency. You file a separate liability election with the IRS after obtaining a divorce.
Assume that the IRS proves that you had actual knowledge of $5,000 of the unreported income but not the other $15,000. You are liable for 25% of the deficiency, or $2,250, allocable to the $5,000 of income that you knew about ($2,250 = $5,000 × $20,000 × $9,000). Your former spouse is liable for the entire deficiency since the unreported income was his. The IRS can collect the entire deficiency from him, or can collect $2,250 from you and the balance from him.
3. Mora’s husband arranged an investment in a cattle-breeding tax shelter partnership. He put the partnership in both of their names, although Mora did not sign any of the partnership papers. On their joint returns, they claimed partnership losses which turned out to be inflated; deductions were based on overvalued cattle. After their divorce, the IRS disallowed the partnership losses and Mora elected separate liability relief. The IRS refused, claiming that she participated in making the investment so the claimed losses were allocable to her as well as her husband. The Tax Court held that Mora was not involved in making the investment and so the partnership losses are allocable to the husband unless Mora knew the factual basis for the denial of the deductions or she received a tax benefit from the deductions. She did not know about the overvaluation of the cattle, which was the factual basis for the IRS’s denial of the deductions. In fact, the IRS conceded that neither spouse understood the nature of their investment or the basis of the deductions. This may often be the case where passive investors claim deductions passed through to them by a limited partnership. For this reason, the IRS argued that the “knowledge of the factual basis” test makes it too easy for limited partnership investors to obtain relief. The Tax Court responded that the law does not distinguish between passive and active investments and there is no policy reason for the courts to create a distinction. Furthermore, although the husband also lacked knowledge of the factual basis for the disallowance of the losses, he cannot avoid liability for the deficiency since the erroneous deductions would be allocable to him on a separate return.
Despite Mora’s “win” on the actual knowledge issue, she remained partially liable for the deficiency because she received a tax benefit from the erroneous deductions. Under the tax benefit rule discussed below, the deductions first offset the income that would have been reported by the husband had he filed a separate return. The balance of the deductions benefitted Mora by reducing her separate return income. If she benefitted from 25% of the deductions, she would remain liable for 25% of the deficiency.

Allocating tax liability between spouses.

Generally, if you make a separate liability election, you are liable only for the portion of the tax due on the joint return that is allocable to you, determined as if you had filed a separate return. If erroneous items (omitted income or improper deductions or credits) are allocable to the other spouse but you had actual knowledge of the items as discussed above, you cannot avoid liability and the IRS remains able to collect the tax due from either of you. Where deductions are allocable to the other spouse and you are not barred from relief by the actual knowledge test, you can still be held partially liable if you received a tax benefit from the deductions; see the discussion of the tax benefit rule below.

In general, the allocation of a tax deficiency depends on which spouse’s “items” gave rise to the deficiency. The items may be omitted income or disallowed deductions or credits. Items are generally allocated to the spouse who would have reported them on a separate return. If a deficiency is based on unreported income, the deficiency is allocated to the spouse who earned the income. Income from a jointly owned business is allocated equally unless you provide evidence that more should be allocated to the other spouse. Similarly, if a deficiency is based on the denial of personal deductions, the deficiency is allocated equally between you unless you show that a different allocation is appropriate. A deficiency based on the denial of business deductions is allocated according to your respective ownership shares in the business. If the IRS can show fraud, it can reallocate joint return items.

On Form 8857, you do not have to figure the portion of the deficiency for which you are liable. The IRS will figure your separate liability (and any related interest and penalties).

Examples
1. After you obtain a divorce, the IRS examines a joint return you filed with your former husband and assesses a tax deficiency attributable to income he failed to report. If you did not know about the omitted income and timely elect separate liability treatment, you are not liable for any part of the tax deficiency, which is entirely allocable to your former husband who earned the income. You are not liable even if the IRS is unable to collect the tax from your former husband and you have substantial assets from which the tax could be paid.
2. The IRS assesses a joint return deficiency attributable to $35,000 of income that your former spouse failed to report and $15,000 of disallowed deductions that you claimed. Both of you may make the separate liability election and limit your respective liabilities.
If you make the election, your liability will be limited to 30% of the deficiency, as your disallowed deductions of $15,000 are 30% of the $50,000 of items causing the deficiency. If your former husband makes the election, he will be liable for the remaining 70% of the deficiency (his $35,000 of unreported income is 70% of the $50,000 of items causing the deficiency).
If either of you does not make the election, the non-electing person could be held liable for 100% of the deficiency unless innocent spouse relief is available or the IRS grants equitable relief.

Tax benefit rule limits relief based on erroneous deductions or credits.

The tax benefit limitation is an exception to the general rule that allocates items between the spouses as if separate returns had been filed. If you received a tax benefit from an erroneous deduction or credit that is allocable to the other spouse, you remain liable for the proportionate part of the deficiency. You are treated as having received a tax benefit if the disallowed deduction exceeded the income that would have been reported by the other spouse on a hypothetical separate return.

Example
On a joint return, you report wages of $100,000 and your husband reports $15,000 of self-employment income. You divorce the following year. The IRS examines the return and disallows a $20,000 business expense deduction claimed by your former husband, resulting in a $5,600 tax deficiency. You elect separate liability relief. Of the $20,000 deduction, $15,000 is allocable to your former husband as that amount offset his entire income. The $5,000 balance offset your separate income and thereby gave you a tax benefit. Your former husband will be liable for 75% of the deficiency ($4,200) and you will be liable for the 25% balance ($1,400).
If your former husband had reported income of $30,000 instead of $15,000, you would not be liable for any part of the deficiency under the tax benefit rule. The deduction is attributed entirely to his income, so the entire deficiency is allocated to him.
These allocations assume that the IRS does not show that you had “actual knowledge” (see above) of the deductions attributable to your former husband. To the extent you had such knowledge, the deductions are allocable to both of you, so both of you remain liable for that part of the deficiency.

Transfers intended to avoid tax.

You may be held liable for more than your allocable share of a deficiency if a disqualified asset transfer was made to you by your spouse with a principal purpose of avoiding tax. Transfers made to you within the one-year period preceding the date on which the IRS sends the first letter of proposed deficiency are presumed to have a tax avoidance purpose unless they are pursuant to a divorce decree or decree of separate maintenance. You may rebut the presumption by showing that tax avoidance was not the principal purpose of the transfer. If the tax avoidance presumption is not rebutted, the transfer is considered a disqualified transfer and the value of the transferred asset adds to your share of the liability as otherwise determined under the above election rules.

If the IRS proves that you and your former spouse transferred assets between you as part of a fraudulent scheme, neither of you will be allowed to make the separate liability election; both of you will remain individually liable for the entire joint return deficiency.

Appeal to Tax Court.

You may petition the Tax Court if the IRS disputes your election or your allocation of liability. The petition must be filed within 90 days of the date on which the IRS mails a determination to you by registered or certified mail if the IRS mailing is within six months of the filing of the election. If an IRS notice is not mailed within the six-month period, a Tax Court petition may be filed without waiting for an IRS response or, if you do wait, you have until 90 days after the date the IRS mails the notice to file the petition.

The IRS may not take any collection action against you during the 90-day period and if the Tax Court petition is filed, the suspension lasts until a final court decision is made.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.220.191.247