holding that knowledge of underlying transaction is all that is required both in omission and deduction cases
How later courts described this case
- holding that knowledge of underlying transaction is all that is required both in omission and deduction cases
- declining to follow the Ninth Circuit's knowledge standard in erroneous deduction cases "except in those instances where appeal lies to that Court of Appeals”
- "[T]he differences in the language used to describe the tests of section 6013(e)(1)(C) are more a matter of semantics than of substance.”
- knowledge of the underlying transaction all that is required both in omission and deduction cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARR, J., concurring: I agree with the result reached in the majority’s opinion, but I am concerned that we are unnecessarily creating a decisional conflict with the Ninth Circuit through our interpretation of section 6013(e)(1)(C). I would simply hold that Margaret Bokum has failed to meet her burden of proving that it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiency in tax. See sec. 6013(e)(1)(D). This holding would render the majority's expansive discussion with respect to the interpretation of section 6013(e)(1)(C) superfluous.
HAMBLEN, J., agrees with this concurring opinion.